<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Memory-Efficient Pipeline-Parallel DNN Training · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2006.09503/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2006.09503/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Memory-Efficient Pipeline-Parallel DNN Training — mentioned by sighingnow</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37831331</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2006.09503:37831331</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:43:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The pipedream-2bw paper[1] and the zero-offload paper[2] both show that 1-step delayed asynchronous gradient update doesn&amp;#x27;t affect the convergence (and perplexity) while improve the training efficiency (by fully utilize the bubbles in pipeline parallelism) at a large margin. However, both the Megatron-LM[3] and the DeepSpeed[4] don&amp;#x27;t use pipedream-2bw scheduling. Could anyone share me some insights or ideas about why such an efficient scheduling scheme doesn&amp;#x27;t get popular in the LLM pretraining community? Does it suffer convergence/accuracy issue in practice? Or are there any other concerns…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2006.09503/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
