Why does the quantization after pruning result in worse performance?

378 views Asked by At

I quantized resent18 model of mine, using graph quantization which lead to a forward pass of about 100 ms (on my cpu) and a size reduction of 40MBs (from initial 85 to 45 MBs).

I then went on and pruned this model to 14.5M parameters from the initial 25M and its size shrunk from 85 to 58 MB. I then quantized the resulting model hoping for further improvements but instead faced diminishing results.

That is, I don't see what I expected for inference speed. Instead of being faster, the newer model simply is worse than the initial model (quantized from initial model).

Is this expected behavior? Here are the two models for comparison: https://gofile.io/d/zCzHAF

And this is their runtime benchmark results:

Quantized (no pruning done beforehand):

1>[ RUN      ] EmbedderModelForwardFixture.ModelEmbedderBench (10 runs, 10 iterations per run)
1>[     DONE ] EmbedderModelForwardFixture.ModelEmbedderBench (5672.357520 ms)
1>[   RUNS   ]        Average time: 567235.752 us (~31674.053 us)
1>                    Fastest time: 530900.462 us (-36335.290 us / -6.406 %)
1>                    Slowest time: 640024.562 us (+72788.810 us / +12.832 %)
1>                     Median time: 561095.762 us (1st quartile: 548392.562 us | 3rd quartile: 577176.062 us)
1>
1>             Average performance: 1.76294 runs/s
1>                Best performance: 1.88359 runs/s (+0.12066 runs/s / +6.84409 %)
1>               Worst performance: 1.56244 runs/s (-0.20050 runs/s / -11.37282 %)
1>              Median performance: 1.78223 runs/s (1st quartile: 1.82351 | 3rd quartile: 1.73257)
1>
1>[ITERATIONS]        Average time: 56723.575 us (~3167.405 us)
1>                    Fastest time: 53090.046 us (-3633.529 us / -6.406 %)
1>                    Slowest time: 64002.456 us (+7278.881 us / +12.832 %)
1>                     Median time: 56109.576 us (1st quartile: 54839.256 us | 3rd quartile: 57717.606 us)
1>
1>             Average performance: 17.62935 iterations/s
1>                Best performance: 18.83592 iterations/s (+1.20657 iterations/s / +6.84409 %)
1>               Worst performance: 15.62440 iterations/s (-2.00495 iterations/s / -11.37282 %)
1>              Median performance: 17.82227 iterations/s (1st quartile: 18.23511 | 3rd quartile: 17.32574)

Pruned-Quantized model:

1>[ RUN      ] EmbedderModelForwardFixture.ModelEmbedderBench (10 runs, 10 iterations per run)
1>[     DONE ] EmbedderModelForwardFixture.ModelEmbedderBench (5778.116020 ms)
1>[   RUNS   ]        Average time: 577811.602 us (~26296.168 us)
1>                    Fastest time: 537246.562 us (-40565.040 us / -7.020 %)
1>                    Slowest time: 617859.662 us (+40048.060 us / +6.931 %)
1>                     Median time: 585275.362 us (1st quartile: 554311.262 us | 3rd quartile: 594753.362 us)
1>
1>             Average performance: 1.73067 runs/s
1>                Best performance: 1.86134 runs/s (+0.13067 runs/s / +7.55054 %)
1>               Worst performance: 1.61849 runs/s (-0.11218 runs/s / -6.48174 %)
1>              Median performance: 1.70860 runs/s (1st quartile: 1.80404 | 3rd quartile: 1.68137)
1>
1>[ITERATIONS]        Average time: 57781.160 us (~2629.617 us)
1>                    Fastest time: 53724.656 us (-4056.504 us / -7.020 %)
1>                    Slowest time: 61785.966 us (+4004.806 us / +6.931 %)
1>                     Median time: 58527.536 us (1st quartile: 55431.126 us | 3rd quartile: 59475.336 us)
1>
1>             Average performance: 17.30668 iterations/s
1>                Best performance: 18.61343 iterations/s (+1.30675 iterations/s / +7.55054 %)
1>               Worst performance: 16.18491 iterations/s (-1.12177 iterations/s / -6.48174 %)
1>              Median performance: 17.08597 iterations/s (1st quartile: 18.04041 | 3rd quartile: 16.81369)

To put it simply after 10 iterations, each take:

r18_default : 805.72 ms (mean) 
quantized_model : 560 ms (mean)
r18_pruned : 7,466.78  ms
pruned_then_quantized: 578 ms (mean) 

Not only the second model is not faster, it's worse, it has become slower! You can also see that the pruned model is extremely slow. 10x slower than the default model.

Note: In case it matters, training (pruning, and finetuning the model) is done using pytorch 1.5.1 and the final graph quantization is done under windows using pytorch 1.6.

Note 2: This is being tested and evaluated using libtorch (1.6) on Windows 10 machine, but there shouldn't be any discrepancy between Python and C++.

0

There are 0 answers