Tag v1.0

[dlfivefifty]

Given this package has not had a breaking change in the last 6 years, perhaps it would be worth just tagging v1.0?

[KristofferC]

#481 was argued to be breaking. But I think we should release 1.0 to finally get that into a release.

[devmotion]

It broke downstream packages (and probably still does) since it was put into a semver-nonbreaking release initially (which was then reverted). But IMO this change should either be released (in a semver-breaking release) or reverted, the current situation with backporting fixes and tagging releases only on the release-0.10 branch is not a good long-term solution.

Personally I'm in favour of releasing this change, it seems reasonable to me. If it turns out to be not feasible/too problematic in practice, it could be reverted in another (breaking?) release; but since it would be opt-in rather than opt-out this time, downstream packages and users would have more time to adapt to this change.

IIRC there was some discussion about including other breaking changes in a 1.0 release, and probably therefore the development version on the master branch is 0.11.0-DEV instead of 1.0.0-DEV.

[KristofferC]

IIRC there was some discussion about including other breaking changes in a 1.0 release

Hasn't seen to happened in two years so at some point you just have to move forward. #481 fixed a lot of issues and seems intuitively right so I say let's just tag the current state of master as 1.0.

[devmotion]

I think one question was whether NaN-safe mode should be the default.

[KristofferC]

That seemed to be prohibitively expensive if I recall correctly.

[dlfivefifty]

Why would NaN-safe mode be the default? I think in Julia speed is almost always preferable to safety so there has to be a very strong argument.

IIRC there was some discussion about including other breaking changes in a 1.0 release

There can always be a 2.0 release

[devmotion]

Why would NaN-safe mode be the default?

Because IMO the default setting should be safe and not give incorrect results. It's also very difficult for users to realize what the problem is, I saw many users struggle with this. IMO users should have to opt-in if they want to sacrifice correctness/safety for performance, as e.g. with fastmath or @inbounds. And I'm not the only one who thinks NaN-safe would be a better default, e.g. #451 (comment).

I think in Julia speed is almost always preferable to safety

I strongly disagree. At least without NaN-safe mode usually you realize very clearly if there's a problem, so at least it's not failing silently; one main issue is that many users do not realize that NaN-safe mode would fix their issue (and many don't even know that it exists).

[ajwheeler]

I want to strongly second the position that the nan-safe mode should be the default. In my performance-critical code, I leave it off, but I've run into a couple instances where new users are very turned off by the default behavior and come away with the impression that using ForwardDiff/julia requires arcane knowledge.

I would add that given it's place in Julia's autodiff ecosystem as the most tried-and-true, almost-always-works autodiff package (this is my experience at least), it's especially important that ForwardDiff be safe by default.

[KristofferC]

What performance regressions are the people arguing for the nan safe mode willing to accept? Just so I get an understanding? 2x, 5x, 10x, 50x, 100x, 1000x, infinity?

[ajwheeler]

Not speaking for others, but 2x would be acceptable, imho. The number I have in my head (from reading #179) is 10%, but that might not be realistic.

[dlfivefifty]

Maybe I'm not understanding but literally nothing in Julia is "NaN-safe". All of LinearAlgebra.jl just propagates NaNs. I don't understand how a "user" can be confused by this just in ForwardDiff.jl but fine with it in every other package...

[dlfivefifty]

And for every novice turned off by "unexpected" behaviour there's a non-novice that's going to walk away thinking Julia is just slow if its 2x slower than it should be...

[KristofferC]

That is not really what nan safe is referring to here though.

[dlfivefifty]

Ok can it be clarified what nan-safe was referring to? I assumed it meant extra checks to throw errors instead of just letting nans propagate…

[ajwheeler]

I have confirmed that the nan-safe mode incurs a minimal performance penalty when autodiffing through my science case (computing a stellar spectrum). I didn't do a super-principled benchmark, but the @btime numbers are actually (weirdly) better with nan-safe mode on (are 10.6s vs 10.5s).

Not claiming that this will generalize, but it's one data point to consider.

[ajwheeler]

#179 and https://juliadiff.org/ForwardDiff.jl/stable/user/advanced/#Fixing-NaN/Inf-Issues have a good description of what is meant by nan-safe mode. But in short it's dealing with a class of cases where the partials have a mathematically-motivated non-NaN value, but end up NaN for computational/implementation reasons. If you have a mental model of how ForwardDiff works, it's easy to avoid/troubleshoot these situations, but if you don't it could be frustrating.

[KristofferC]

In any case, switching nan safe by default is not breaking no? So does this discussion really have to be here?

[devmotion]

No, I agree. And if others agree as well, then that's not blocking for a 1.0 release.

A PR for tagging 1.0 has been open for quite some time: #467 And it seems the breaking change on the master branch would also resolve the main criticism in the PR (breaking release without breaking change).

[dlfivefifty]

Ok thanks for the clarification, sorry about the Misunderstanding. I think nansafe by default is probably the right choice as it claims it’s only a 5-10% degredation and it’s easy to switch to a fast mode

[thomvet]

I would be in favor of a 1.0 release at this point of time. It's a very stable package (i.e., 1.0 level) and with the inclusion of #481 the breaking release is also justified and not needless.

I do think that NaN-safe mode turned on makes sense for this package - given its position as a "ground truth" within the Julia autodiff ecosystem. However, I would appreciate if there is strong signposting within the documentation (and maybe even upon use - unless opted out) that there is a more performant mode available. Maybe even with a write up of #179?

[KristofferC]

From my memory, the perf impact was much worse since it turns core operations (like multiplying the partials) from a few SIMD instructions to a whole slew of branchy code:

Non nan-safe:

julia> a = ForwardDiff.Dual(1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0)
Dual{Nothing}(1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0)

julia> @code_native debuginfo=:none ForwardDiff._mul_partials(a.partials, a.partials, 2.0, 1.0)
	push	rbp
	vbroadcastsd	ymm0, xmm0
	vbroadcastsd	ymm1, xmm1
	vmulpd	ymm0, ymm0, ymmword ptr [rsi]
	vmulpd	ymm1, ymm1, ymmword ptr [rdx]
	mov	rbp, rsp
	mov	rax, rdi
	vaddpd	ymm0, ymm0, ymm1
	vmovupd	ymmword ptr [rdi], ymm0
	pop	rbp
	vzeroupper
	ret

Nan-safe

julia> a = ForwardDiff.Dual(1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0)
Dual{Nothing}(1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0)

julia> @code_native debuginfo=:none ForwardDiff._mul_partials(a.partials, a.partials, 2.0, 1.0)
	push	rbp
	vsubsd	xmm2, xmm1, xmm1
	vmovupd	ymm3, ymmword ptr [rsi]
	movabs	rcx, offset .LCPI0_0
	mov	rbp, rsp
	mov	rax, rdi
	vucomisd	xmm2, xmm2
	vmovsd	xmm2, qword ptr [rdx]           # xmm2 = mem[0],zero
	jp	.LBB0_1
.LBB0_5:                                # %L61
	vxorpd	xmm4, xmm4, xmm4
	vcmpneqpd	ymm4, ymm3, ymm4
	vmovmskpd	esi, ymm4
	test	esi, esi
	jne	.LBB0_7
# %bb.6:                                # %L61
	vmovapd	xmm5, xmmword ptr [rcx]
	vsubsd	xmm4, xmm0, xmm0
	vcmpordsd	xmm4, xmm4, xmm4
	vblendvpd	xmm0, xmm5, xmm0, xmm4
.LBB0_7:                                # %L61
	vmovupd	xmm4, xmmword ptr [rdx + 8]
	vbroadcastsd	ymm0, xmm0
	vbroadcastsd	ymm1, xmm1
	vmulpd	ymm0, ymm0, ymm3
	vpermpd	ymm3, ymm4, 208                 # ymm3 = ymm4[0,0,1,3]
	vbroadcastsd	ymm4, qword ptr [rdx + 24]
	vblendpd	ymm2, ymm3, ymm2, 1             # ymm2 = ymm2[0],ymm3[1,2,3]
	vblendpd	ymm2, ymm2, ymm4, 8             # ymm2 = ymm2[0,1,2],ymm4[3]
	vmulpd	ymm1, ymm1, ymm2
	vaddpd	ymm0, ymm0, ymm1
	vmovupd	ymmword ptr [rax], ymm0
	pop	rbp
	vzeroupper
	ret
.LBB0_1:                                # %L37
	vxorpd	xmm4, xmm4, xmm4
	vucomisd	xmm2, xmm4
	jne	.LBB0_5
	jp	.LBB0_5
# %bb.2:                                # %L37
	vmovsd	xmm5, qword ptr [rdx + 8]       # xmm5 = mem[0],zero
	vucomisd	xmm5, xmm4
	jne	.LBB0_5
	jp	.LBB0_5
# %bb.3:                                # %L37
	vmovsd	xmm5, qword ptr [rdx + 16]      # xmm5 = mem[0],zero
	vucomisd	xmm5, xmm4
	jne	.LBB0_5
	jp	.LBB0_5
# %bb.4:                                # %L50
	vcmpneqsd	xmm4, xmm4, qword ptr [rdx + 24]
	vmovapd	xmm5, xmmword ptr [rcx]
	vblendvpd	xmm1, xmm5, xmm1, xmm4
	jmp	.LBB0_5

But I guess it depends what code you benchmark and if possible newer LLVM versions has improved this since I last measured.

[antoine-levitt]

It'd be nice to do this, as the new version includes a fix for silently wrong answers (eg #653 #727)

[KristofferC]

So let' just do it?

[dlfivefifty]

I made a PR: #728

So when people are happy just merge and register?

[antoine-levitt]

Yessss, thanks!