skip to main content
10.1145/3429882.3430104acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmiddlewareConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Graph Representation Matters in Device Placement

Published:04 January 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Modern Neural Network (NN) models require more data and parameters to perform ever more complicated tasks. One approach to train a massive NN is to distribute it across multiple devices. This approach raises a problem known as the device placement problem. Most of the state-of-the-art solutions that tackle this problem leverage graph embedding techniques. In this work, we assess the impact of different graph embedding techniques on the quality of device placement, measured by (i) the execution time of partitioned NN models, and (ii) the computation time of the graph embedding technique. In particular, we expand Placeto, a state-of-the-art device placement solution, and evaluate the impact of two graph embedding techniques, GraphSAGE and P-GNN, compared to the original Placeto graph embedding model, Placeto-GNN. In terms of the execution time improvement, we achieve an increase of 23.967% when using P-GNN compared to Placeto-GNN, while GraphSAGE produces 1.165% better results than Placeto-GNN. Regarding computation time, GraphSAGE has a gain of 11.569% compared to Placeto-GNN, whereas P-GNN is 6.95% slower than it.

References

  1. R. Addanki et al. 2019. Placeto: Learning generalizable device placement algorithms for distributed machine learning. arXiv:1906.08879 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. Dean et al. 2012. Large scale distributed deep networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 1223--1231. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. W. Hamilton et al. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. (2017), 1024--1034. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. P. Hieu et al. 2018. Efficient neural architecture search via parameter sharing. arXiv:1802.03268 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S. Hochreiter et al. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation 9, 8 (1997), 1735--1780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Y. Huang et al. 2018. Flexps: Flexible parallelism control in parameter server architecture. VLDB Endowment 11, 5 (2018), 566--579. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. Mayer et al. 2017. The tensorflow partitioning and scheduling problem: it's the critical path!. In DIDL. 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Mirhoseini et al. 2017. Device placement optimization with reinforcement learning. arXiv:1706.04972 (2017). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Mirhoseini et al. 2018. A hierarchical model for device placement. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Nazi et al. 2019. Gap: Generalizable approximate graph partitioning framework. arXiv:1903.00614 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J Schulman et al. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv:1707.06347 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Sergeev et al. 2018. Horovod: fast and easy distributed deep learning in TensorFlow. arXiv:1802.05799 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. A Vaswani et al. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 5998--6008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Y. Wu et al. 2016. Google's neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv:1609.08144 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J You et al. 2019. Position-aware graph neural networks. arXiv:1906.04817 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. G. Yuanxiang et al. 2018. Spotlight: Optimizing device placement for training deep neural networks. In ICML. 1676--1684.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Y. Zhou et al. 2019. GDP: Generalized Device Placement for Dataflow Graphs. arXiv:1910.01578 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Graph Representation Matters in Device Placement

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      DIDL'20: Proceedings of the Workshop on Distributed Infrastructures for Deep Learning
      December 2020
      17 pages
      ISBN:9781450382069
      DOI:10.1145/3429882

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 January 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader