PreprintCited by 298Parallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesStochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network Applications

PipeDream: Fast and Efficient Pipeline Parallel DNN Training

Open access
Harlap, Aaron, Narayanan, Deepak, Phanishayee, Amar, Seshadri, Vivek, Devanur, Nikhil, Ganger, Greg, Gibbons, Phil·2018·arXiv

Abstract

PipeDream is a Deep Neural Network(DNN) training system for GPUs that parallelizes computation by pipelining execution across multiple machines. Its pipeline parallel computing model avoids the slowdowns faced by data-parallel training when large models and/or limited network bandwidth induce high communication-to-computation ratios. PipeDream reduces communication by up to 95% for large DNNs relative to data-parallel training, and allows perfect overlap of communication and computation. PipeDream keeps all available GPUs productive by systematically partitioning DNN layers among them to balance work and minimize communication, versions model parameters for backward pass correctness, and schedules the forward and backward passes of different inputs in round-robin fashion to optimize "time to target accuracy". Experiments with five different DNNs on two different clusters show that PipeDream is up to 5x faster in time-to-accuracy compared to data-parallel training.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1806.03377

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PipeDream shows the advantage of reducing communication overhead and utilizing computing resource efficiently.

    “PipeDream shows the advantage of reducing communication overhead and utilizing computing resource efficiently.”
  • The performance of transfer learning varies with architectures and transfer techniques.

    “The result varies with architectures and transfer techniques.”
  • A good performance improvement is obtained by transferring knowledge from both the intermediate layers and last layer of the teacher to a shallower student, while other architectures and transfer techniques do not fare so well and some even lead to negative performance impact.

    “A good performance improvement is obtained by transferring knowledge from both the intermediate layers and last layer of the teacher to a shallower student while other architectures and transfer techniques do not fare so well and some of them even lead to negative performance impact.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

11 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harlap, A., Narayanan, D., Phanishayee, A., Seshadri, V., Devanur, N., Ganger, G., & Gibbons, P.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2807147113
Cited by
153
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
pipeline parallelism, deep neural network training, GPU clusters, communication-to-computation ratio, data-parallel training, layer partitioning, communication overlap, distributed training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review