Skip to content

Fix wrong behavior of DDPStrategy option with simple GAN training using DDP #20936

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

samsara-ku
Copy link

@samsara-ku samsara-ku commented Jun 25, 2025

What does this PR do?

Fixes #20866 #20328 #18740 #17212

This PR adds MultiModelDDPStrategy class and its simple execution example, for the multi-gpu training with GAN training.

Simply speaking:

* right way using DDP in pytorch.
# each model is divided and wrapped by DDP class
generator, discriminator = DDP(generator), DDP(discrimiantor)

* current pytorch-lightning GAN training.
# trainer contains two nn.Modules; generator and discriminator
DDP(trainer) -> trainer contains two nn.Modules; generator and discriminator

* proposed `MultiModelDDP` class can use this way.
# trainer also has two nn.Modules, generator and discriminator;
# this way allocate DDP class to the each model in the trainer, not the trainer.
MultiModelDDP(trainer)
  • Currently, pytorch lightning simple GAN training has has problem with DistributedDataParallel strategy. It tries to wrap pl.trainer, not the nn.Module models in the pl.trainer

  • Although we can activate find_unused_parameters=True options to avoid this issue but it is not right way; I think it is just a trick.

  • So the key idea to solve this issue is that we assign DistributedDataParallel to the each model in the pl.trainer, different from the previous strategy DDPStrategy.

  • I already tested with my GPUs to visaulize the result and tracked the gradients of model with each epoch; it works and you can see the visulized result in thie google drive link

Before submitting
  • Was this discussed/agreed via a GitHub issue? (not for typos and docs)
  • [v] Did you read the contributor guideline, Pull Request section?
  • [v] Did you make sure your PR does only one thing, instead of bundling different changes together?
  • Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes? (if necessary)
  • Did you write any new necessary tests? (not for typos and docs)
  • Did you verify new and existing tests pass locally with your changes?
  • Did you list all the breaking changes introduced by this pull request?
  • Did you update the CHANGELOG? (not for typos, docs, test updates, or minor internal changes/refactors)

PR review

Anyone in the community is welcome to review the PR.
Before you start reviewing, make sure you have read the review guidelines. In short, see the following bullet-list:

Reviewer checklist
  • Is this pull request ready for review? (if not, please submit in draft mode)
  • Check that all items from Before submitting are resolved
  • Make sure the title is self-explanatory and the description concisely explains the PR
  • Add labels and milestones (and optionally projects) to the PR so it can be classified

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pytorch-lightning--20936.org.readthedocs.build/en/20936/

@github-actions github-actions bot added the pl Generic label for PyTorch Lightning package label Jun 25, 2025
Comment on lines +59 to +64
def block(in_feat, out_feat, normalize=True):
layers = [nn.Linear(in_feat, out_feat)]
if normalize:
layers.append(nn.BatchNorm1d(out_feat, 0.8))
layers.append(nn.LeakyReLU(0.2, inplace=True))
return layers
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lets move it out s a funtion

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pl Generic label for PyTorch Lightning package
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Fix GAN training exmaple using DDP due to find_unused_parameters
2 participants