Request for Clarification and Possible Refinement of `Plugin` and `KwargsHandler` Design

yhna
Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:25:45 +0000

Dear Accelerate Team,

First of all, I want to express my gratitude for the incredible work you’ve done with Accelerate. It’s an outstanding library that has made distributed training and mixed precision setups far more accessible. While exploring its features, I’ve come across some aspects of the plugin and KwargsHandler design that I found slightly unclear, and I’d like to respectfully request clarification regarding their intended usage and distinctions.

Observations

1. Ambiguity Between Plugins and KwargsHandler:

Some plugins (e.g., GradientAccumulationPlugin) inherit from KwargsHandler, while others (e.g., FullyShardedDataParallelPlugin) do not. This creates some uncertainty about the relationship between plugins and KwargsHandler.

For example:
@dataclass
class GradientAccumulationPlugin(KwargsHandler):  # Inherits from KwargsHandler
    ...

@dataclass
class FullyShardedDataParallelPlugin:  # Does not inherit from KwargsHandler
    ...

It would be helpful to understand whether all plugins are intended to inherit from KwargsHandler, or if there is a deliberate distinction between these two categories.

2. Direct vs. List-Based Integration:

In the Accelerator constructor, all plugins (e.g., fsdp_plugin, deepspeed_plugin, megatron_lm_plugin) are passed directly as arguments. However, objects inheriting from KwargsHandler are grouped into a list under the kwargs_handlers argument.

For instance:
fsdp_plugin: FullyShardedDataParallelPlugin | None = None
deepspeed_plugin: DeepSpeedPlugin | None = None
kwargs_handlers: list[KwargsHandler] | None = None

This separation raises questions about the design philosophy behind these two approaches. Why are some objects passed directly as arguments while others are grouped into a list? Is there a specific reason for this distinction?

3. Compatibility Between Plugins:

As far as I understand, certain plugins like fsdp_plugin, deepspeed_plugin, and megatron_lm_plugin cannot be used together. However, this limitation isn’t immediately apparent to users who might try to combine them in their configurations. This could lead to confusion or errors for those unfamiliar with the constraints of distributed training setups.

4. Challenges for New Users:

As someone relatively new to Accelerate, I often find myself unsure whether a specific feature should be configured through a plugin or a handler (i.e., an object inheriting from KwargsHandler). For example, gradient accumulation can be configured either via the gradient_accumulation_steps argument directly or by using the GradientAccumulationPlugin.

This lack of clear boundaries between plugins and handlers makes it harder for new users to confidently configure their training environments.

5. Constructor Complexity:

The current constructor for the Accelerator class includes many arguments, which can be overwhelming for new users. While this flexibility is undoubtedly powerful, it may benefit from a more streamlined approach or additional documentation to guide users through common configurations.

Closing Thoughts

I would love to hear your thoughts on these observations—particularly regarding the relationship between plugins and handlers, as well as any plans for refining their integration in future updates. If there are specific design philosophies or technical considerations behind these distinctions, learning about them would also help me (and likely others) better understand how to use Accelerate effectively.
Thank you again for your hard work on Accelerate—it’s an exceptional tool that has already made a significant impact on the machine learning community! I look forward to seeing how it continues to evolve and improve in the future.

Read full topic