Add benchmark scripts#173
Conversation
|
Okay, here we go again. Everyone happy? Should we mention this in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks solid.
Yes I would link in the CONTRIBUTING and also in PR checklist
https://github.com/lab-cosmo/torch-pme/blob/main/.github/pull_request_template.md
We should also maybe add a section in the docs for people who are interested. I can do this.
We could even run this as a gallery example - to verify if we break something and also to have this nice looking code somewhere on the web page.
| ``benchmark``: performance sanity checking | ||
| ========================================== | ||
|
|
||
| This provides a basic benchmarking script intended to catch major performance regressions (or improvements!). It emulates a "training"-style workload of computing energy and forces for a number of similar systems with pre-computed neighborlists and settings. In particular, we run PME forward and backward calculations for supercells of cubic CsCl crystals, in different sizes. Results are stored as a time-stamped ``.yaml`` file, together with some basic system and version information (which is just the output of ``git`` for now). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We run PME or P3M? I think the latter is preferred.
You can take the version of torch-pme. Thanks to setuptools-scm the version will contain the version and the commit!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could just for consistency in the project use a .xyz. But up to you.
| @@ -0,0 +1,394 @@ | |||
| #!/usr/bin/env python | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| #!/usr/bin/env python | |
| #!/usr/bin/env python3 |
| devices = [] | ||
| if torch.cuda.is_available(): | ||
| devices.append("cuda") | ||
|
|
||
| # run CUDA first! | ||
| devices.append("cpu") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| devices = [] | |
| if torch.cuda.is_available(): | |
| devices.append("cuda") | |
| # run CUDA first! | |
| devices.append("cpu") | |
| devices = ["cpu"] | |
| # run CUDA first! | |
| if torch.cuda.is_available(): | |
| devices.insert(0, "cuda") |
| # tight settings | ||
| cutoff_tight = half_cell | ||
| mesh_spacing_tight = atomic_smearing / 8.0 | ||
| lr_wavelength_tight = atomic_smearing / 2.0 | ||
|
|
||
| # light settings, roughly 4 times less computational costs | ||
| cutoff_light = cutoff_tight / 2.0 | ||
| mesh_spacing_light = mesh_spacing_tight * 2.0 | ||
| lr_wavelength_light = lr_wavelength_tight * 2.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we use the tuning code with 10^-2 and maybe 10^-4. Maybe not now since the code seems still a bit fragile.... @GardevoirX
| cwd = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)) | ||
| try: | ||
| torch_pme_commit = subprocess.check_output( | ||
| ["git", "log", "--oneline", "-1"], cwd=cwd | ||
| ).decode("utf-8") | ||
| torch_pme_status = subprocess.check_output( | ||
| ["git", "status", "--porcelain"], cwd=cwd | ||
| ).decode("utf-8") | ||
| except subprocess.CalledProcessError: | ||
| torch_pme_commit = "not found" | ||
| torch_pme_status = "not found" | ||
|
|
||
| version = { | ||
| "torch": str(torch.__version__), | ||
| "torch-pme-commit": torch_pme_commit, | ||
| "torch-pme-status": torch_pme_status, | ||
| "torch-pme-version": torchpme.__version__, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be enough
| cwd = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)) | |
| try: | |
| torch_pme_commit = subprocess.check_output( | |
| ["git", "log", "--oneline", "-1"], cwd=cwd | |
| ).decode("utf-8") | |
| torch_pme_status = subprocess.check_output( | |
| ["git", "status", "--porcelain"], cwd=cwd | |
| ).decode("utf-8") | |
| except subprocess.CalledProcessError: | |
| torch_pme_commit = "not found" | |
| torch_pme_status = "not found" | |
| version = { | |
| "torch": str(torch.__version__), | |
| "torch-pme-commit": torch_pme_commit, | |
| "torch-pme-status": torch_pme_status, | |
| "torch-pme-version": torchpme.__version__, | |
| } | |
| version = { | |
| "torch": str(torch.__version__), | |
| "torch-pme": str(torchpme.__version__), | |
| } |
| def compute_distances(positions, neighbor_indices, cell=None, neighbor_shifts=None): | ||
| """Compute pairwise distances.""" | ||
| atom_is = neighbor_indices[:, 0] | ||
| atom_js = neighbor_indices[:, 1] | ||
|
|
||
| pos_is = positions[atom_is] | ||
| pos_js = positions[atom_js] | ||
|
|
||
| distance_vectors = pos_js - pos_is | ||
|
|
||
| if cell is not None and neighbor_shifts is not None: | ||
| shifts = neighbor_shifts.type(cell.dtype) | ||
| distance_vectors += shifts @ cell | ||
| elif cell is not None and neighbor_shifts is None: | ||
| raise ValueError("Provided `cell` but no `neighbor_shifts`.") | ||
| elif cell is None and neighbor_shifts is not None: | ||
| raise ValueError("Provided `neighbor_shifts` but no `cell`.") | ||
|
|
||
| return torch.linalg.norm(distance_vectors, dim=1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason not to use external code or reusing the function we already defined in the testsuite? I am not a big fan of having duplicated code in the repo...
I am even okay moving the distance function as private function in the main repo, if you are afraid of abusing sys.path.append
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe add a comment that we run only single precision (because we showed in the paper that it makes no difference!)
| return (system, neighbors) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def get_calculate_fn(calculator): |
2 participants
Fixes #17
A continuation of #81 -- see discussion there.
This adds a benchmark script to catch performance regressions.
Contributor (creator of pull-request) checklist
Reviewer checklist
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://torch-pme--173.org.readthedocs.build/en/173/