[Question] Enabling backward communication in coarse-grained workload
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 1.2k
- Forks
- 184
- Avg merge
- 13h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
Regarding the coarse-grained workload generation, I noticed that the backward communication is currently set to NONE. After reviewing the discussion in #123 , we are considering replacing NONE with ALLREDUCE in the backpropagation phase and adding the corresponding communication size (e.g., tp_comm_size) to facilitate our ns-3 experiments on network congestion and potential solutions.
Is this a recommended approach to capture backward gradient sync traffic? Would this introduce any unintended side effects or logical conflicts within the SimAI simulation framework, such as double-counting issues with the grad_param_comm node?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the coarse-grained workload generation behavior and the discussion in #123, focusing on the current NONE setting, ALLREDUCE, tp_comm_size, and the grad_param_comm node. Done means establishing whether backward gradient synchronization should be represented this way without unintended conflicts or double-counting, and recording the resulting recommendation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- distributed-systems, networking
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100