-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
[Rewriter]: fuse successive Relu/Clip nodes #2410
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
❌ 13 Tests Failed:
View the top 2 failed test(s) by shortest run time
View the full list of 1 ❄️ flaky tests
To view more test analytics, go to the Test Analytics Dashboard |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Pull Request Overview
This PR adds graph rewrite rules to fuse consecutive Relu and Clip operations, updates the test harness to control ONNX Runtime’s optimization level, and provides unit tests to validate the new transformations.
- Introduce four fusion rules (
Relu(Relu)
,Relu(Clip)
,Clip(Relu)
,Clip(Clip)
) infuse_relus_clips.py
- Extend
assert_numerically_equal
intesting.py
to accept anort_optimization_level
argument - Add comprehensive tests in
fuse_relus_clips_test.py
to cover valid and invalid fusion scenarios
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
File | Description |
---|---|
onnxscript/rewriter/fuse_relus_clips.py | Implement new RewriteRule classes and assemble them into a set. |
onnxscript/rewriter/testing.py | Update test helper to pass through ONNX Runtime optimization level. |
onnxscript/rewriter/fuse_relus_clips_test.py | Add unit tests for each fusion pattern and edge‐case validations. |
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)
onnxscript/rewriter/fuse_relus_clips.py:161
- The variable name
fuse_sucessive_relu_clip_rule
has a typo (sucessive
vs.successive
). Rename it tofuse_successive_relu_clip_rule
for consistency with the other rules, and update any references.
fuse_sucessive_relu_clip_rule = FuseSuccessiveReluClip().rule()
onnxscript/rewriter/testing.py:27
- [nitpick] The
Args:
section in the docstring does not match the parameter order of the function signature. Consider reordering the entries so they follow(original_model_proto, rewritten_model_proto, args, ort_optimization_level, rtol, atol)
.
ort_optimization_level: Onnxruntime optimization level.
expected_op_type: str, | ||
dtype: str = "float", | ||
): | ||
base_model = ir.serde.deserialize_model(base_model) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
base_model = ir.serde.deserialize_model(base_model) |
|
||
def run_test( | ||
self, | ||
base_model: onnx.ModelProto | ir.Model, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
base_model: onnx.ModelProto | ir.Model, | |
base_model: ir.Model, |
model_proto = onnx.parser.parse_model(""" | ||
< ir_version: 10, opset_import: ["" : 20] > | ||
test_model (float[N, 32, 14] X) => (float [N, ?, ?] Y) | ||
{ | ||
x1 = Relu(X) | ||
x2 = Relu(x1) | ||
Y = Relu(x2) | ||
} | ||
""") | ||
self.run_test(model_proto, expected_op_type="Relu") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
model_proto = onnx.parser.parse_model(""" | |
< ir_version: 10, opset_import: ["" : 20] > | |
test_model (float[N, 32, 14] X) => (float [N, ?, ?] Y) | |
{ | |
x1 = Relu(X) | |
x2 = Relu(x1) | |
Y = Relu(x2) | |
} | |
""") | |
self.run_test(model_proto, expected_op_type="Relu") | |
model = ir.from_onnx_text(""" | |
< ir_version: 10, opset_import: ["" : 20] > | |
test_model (float[N, 32, 14] X) => (float [N, ?, ?] Y) | |
{ | |
x1 = Relu(X) | |
x2 = Relu(x1) | |
Y = Relu(x2) | |
} | |
""") | |
self.run_test(model, expected_op_type="Relu") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here and below, thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you - I think this can be part of the default rewrite rules
cc @gramalingam
- Relu(Relu(X)) -> Relu - Relu(Clip(X)) -> Clip - Clip(Relu(X)) -> Clip - Clip(Clip(X)) -> Clip
ab90aaf
to
e0f6332
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please fix optional lint (it's mainly spelling).
del context # Unused | ||
check_result = orp.MatchResult() | ||
|
||
# check clip min/max are initializers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
# check clip min/max are initializers | |
# check if clip min/max are initializers |
check_result = orp.MatchResult() | ||
|
||
# check clip min/max are initializers | ||
initializers = [] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: Using initializers as variable name seems a bit confusing here. Something like clip_min_max would be more understandable. Especially I think is_graph_input()
and is_initializer()
can express what you are doing here.
), | ||
] | ||
) | ||
def test_fuse_successive_relu_clip_non_initializers(self, _, nodes, rewrite_rule): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: Could you add "successful" or "fail" on the test title so people can know what to expect?
if initializer.is_graph_input(): | ||
return check_result.fail(f"{initializer.name} is a graph input.") | ||
|
||
if not initializer.is_initializer() or initializer.const_value is None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why constants won't work here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you summarize and update the "check logic" in check()
description?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why constants won't work here?
The condition is mainly to check clip min/max are not initializers (inputs). Are you asking if I should also support cases where min and max are Constant nodes ? (is the check I did exclude this case ?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I am curious why we don't include constant nodes here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you mean I support or reject Constant nodes ? Also in the rewriter, I supposed that all constant nodes were folded (as ConstantFolding is the first pass applied in the optimizer).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the question is this: one would expect that the pattern should include both initialized values and constant nodes. Here the check will reject when the value is produced by a constant node.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe I misunderstood const_value attribute, when it is None and the value is initializer, it means that the value is produced by a constant node right ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That would be inaccurate. A value is an initializer only when it is part of the graph.initializers mapping. You may use .is_graph_input()
to check if the value is an input. You may use ir.convenience.get_const_tensor()
to get the tensor value from either an initialized value or a value that comes from a Constant node.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok I see, thanks. While doing the change, the constant node gets disconnected from the graph but never removed. Should I also handle the removal of Constant nodes ? I thought the rewriter does it by default.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. You can leave it to the rewriter or the final DCE pass, since it's not always safe to remove them during rewrites (it needs to have a single consumer which is disconnected)
This PR adds the following transformation: