-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.8k
optimize CPU inference with Array-Based Tree Traversal #11519
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: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Thank you for the optimization on the inference. Please unmark the "draft" status and ping me when the PR is ready for testing. |
Co-authored-by: Victoriya Fedotova <viktoria.nn@gmail.com>
…rdin/xgboost into dev/cpu/eytzinger_layout
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.
Cosmetic changes.
The next possible step would be to convert the trees into array-based representation only once, and not to do it for each block of data.
Co-authored-by: Victoriya Fedotova <viktoria.nn@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Victoriya Fedotova <viktoria.nn@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Victoriya Fedotova <viktoria.nn@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Victoriya Fedotova <viktoria.nn@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Victoriya Fedotova <viktoria.nn@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Victoriya Fedotova <viktoria.nn@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Victoriya Fedotova <viktoria.nn@gmail.com>
it sounds reasonable and will further improve perf (by cost of increasing memory consumption). |
hi @trivialfis, the PR is ready for review. |
cc @hcho3 |
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.
Still trying to understand the code, will give it a try later. In the meanwhile, could you please craft some specific unittests for the new inference algorithm?
* We use transforming trees to array layout for each block of data to avoid memory overheads. | ||
* It makes the array layout inefficient for block_size == 1 | ||
*/ | ||
const bool use_array_tree_layout = block_size > 1; |
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.
What happens if this is a small online inference call? The input size could be a few samples per call.
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.
The default (the old one) realization will be used
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < block_size; ++i) { | ||
bst_node_t nidx = 0; | ||
if constexpr (use_array_tree_layout) { | ||
nidx = p_nidx[i]; |
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.
unused?
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.
The optimized array_layout processing is effective only for nodes, that are close to root. For other nodes, we still use the original method.
I added some unit-tests. |
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'm still trying to understand the code, in the meantime, let me do some refactoring in this and the next week to accommodate the new optimization. We need a better structure to handle all these:
- Predict with scalar leaf.
- Predict with vector leaf.
- Array predict with scalar leaf.
- Array predict with vector leaf.
- Column split with scalar leaf.
I think I will split up the CPU predictor into multiple pieces.
* If the tree has additional levels, this array stores the node indices of the sub-trees at level kNumDeepLevels. | ||
* This is necessary to continue processing nodes that are not eligible for array-based unrolling. | ||
* The number of sub-trees packed into this array is equal to the number of nodes at tree level kNumDeepLevels, | ||
* which is calculated as (1u << kNumDeepLevels) == kNodesCount + 1. |
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.
What happens if the tree is not well balanced and is more like a linked list than a tree?
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.
In this case we add dummy nodes with nan
as split condition. In this dummy node the decision is always "go right" (see also comments https://github.com/razdoburdin/xgboost/blob/b0eaa856e1246416f7f9538bcc004e7723d9b997/src/predictor/array_tree_layout.h#L154), the left child are not initialized.
So with array layout we have to allocated all nodes, but keep some of the unpopulated in case the tree is pure balanced.
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 for sharing, that makes sense.
*/ | ||
std::array<bst_node_t, kNodesCount + 1> nidx_in_tree_; | ||
|
||
static bool IsLeaf(const RegTree& tree, bst_node_t nidx) { |
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.
Is there a benefit of doing this C++ overloading rather than the simpler tree.IsLeaf
? How much faster are we seeing?
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 did the overload to handle both RegTree
and MultiTargetTree
cases. Is there a better option?
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.
Use RegTree
without extracting the Multi-target tree when populating the buffer, and delegate the dispatching to RegTree::LeftChild(bst_node_t nidx)
instead of using the RegTree::Node::LeftChild
. There's a check inside the RegTree::LeftChild
:
[[nodiscard]] bst_node_t LeftChild(bst_node_t nidx) const {
if (IsMultiTarget()) {
return this->p_mt_tree_->LeftChild(nidx);
}
return (*this)[nidx].LeftChild();
}
Co-authored-by: Jiaming Yuan <jm.yuan@outlook.com>
I'm trying to cleanup the CPU predictor. I will update this PR once it is finished. |
I need to fix a perf regression caused by the new ordinal encoder. |
This has been fixed. I will look deeper into this PR. |
using DefaultLeftType = | ||
typename std::conditional_t<any_missing, | ||
std::array<uint8_t, kNodesCount>, | ||
struct Empty>; |
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.
struct Empty>; | |
Empty>; |
* If the tree has additional levels, this array stores the node indices of the sub-trees at level kNumDeepLevels. | ||
* This is necessary to continue processing nodes that are not eligible for array-based unrolling. | ||
* The number of sub-trees packed into this array is equal to the number of nodes at tree level kNumDeepLevels, | ||
* which is calculated as (1u << kNumDeepLevels) == kNodesCount + 1. |
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 for sharing, that makes sense.
*/ | ||
std::array<bst_node_t, kNodesCount + 1> nidx_in_tree_; | ||
|
||
static bool IsLeaf(const RegTree& tree, bst_node_t nidx) { |
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.
Use RegTree
without extracting the Multi-target tree when populating the buffer, and delegate the dispatching to RegTree::LeftChild(bst_node_t nidx)
instead of using the RegTree::Node::LeftChild
. There's a check inside the RegTree::LeftChild
:
[[nodiscard]] bst_node_t LeftChild(bst_node_t nidx) const {
if (IsMultiTarget()) {
return this->p_mt_tree_->LeftChild(nidx);
}
return (*this)[nidx].LeftChild();
}
Thank you for expanding the tree layout. In the future (when you can prioritize it), do you think it's possible to create and store the layout inside the
You can define a |
This PR introduces optimization for CPU inference. For each tree, the top N levels are transformed into a compact array-based layout. This allows for a branchless node indexing rule: idx = 2 * idx + int(val < split_cond). To minimize memory overhead, this transformation from the standard tree structure to the array layout is performed on-the-fly for each block of data being processed. Even with this additional calculations, improved data locality in the cache-friendly array layout leads to inference speed up to ~2x (x1.4 on average).
