Redo custom attention processor to support other attention types

[StAlKeR7779]

Summary

Current attention processor implements only torch-sdp attention type, so when any ip-adapter or regional prompt used, we override model to run torch-sdp attention.
New attention processor combines 4 attention processors(normal, sliced, xformers, torch-sdp) by moving parts of attention that differs(mask preparation and attention itself), to separate function call, where required implementation executed.

Related Issues / Discussions

None

QA Instructions

Change attention_type in invokeai.yaml and then run generation with ip-adapter or regional prompt.

Merge Plan

None?

Checklist

• The PR has a short but descriptive title, suitable for a changelog
• Tests added / updated (if applicable)
• Documentation added / updated (if applicable)

@dunkeroni@RyanJDick

[RyanJDick]

I haven't looked at the code yet, but do you know if there are still use cases for using attention processors other than Torch 2.0 SDP? Based on the benchmarking that diffusers has done, it seems like the all around best choice. But maybe there are still reasons to use other implementation e.g. very-low-vram system?

[StAlKeR7779]

I thought roughly same:
normal - generally no need in it
xformers - if you said that torch-sdp on par or even faster, then too can be removed
sliced - yes it's suitable for low memory situations, and I think it's main attention for mps

[psychedelicious]

On CUDA, torch's SDP was faster than xformers for me when I last checked a month or so back. IIRC it was just a couple % faster.

[RyanJDick]

I thought about this some more, and I'm hesitant to proceed with trying to merge this until we have more clarity around which attention implementations we actually want to support.

Right now, we have _adjust_memory_efficient_attention, which tries to configure attention based on the config and the system properties. The logic in this function is outdated, and I think there has been hesitation to change it out of fear of causing a regression on some systems. Let's get to the bottom of this, before deciding how to proceed with this PR.

My current guess is that just supporting torch SDP and sliced attention would cover all use cases. But, we need to do some testing to determine if this is accurate.

A few data points to consider:

• https://pytorch.org/blog/accelerated-diffusers-pt-20/
• https://huggingface.co/docs/diffusers/v0.13.0/en/optimization/torch2.0
• I did a quick experiment on an RTX4090 and saw a speedup from choosing SDP over xformers (not currently the default behaviour).

@StAlKeR7779 do you want to look into this?

[StAlKeR7779]

@RyanJDick ok, I removed normal and xformers attentions.
But some parts related to frontend, so I hope that @psychedelicious will look at it.
Also question is - what to do with config, I think old configs can be migrated, to convert normal/xformers values, but I not familiar with this part, will look closely later. Maybe @lstein can suggest how to do it.
Upd: Already added config migration, but welcome to hear if done smth wrong in it.

[psychedelicious]

pls run scripts/update_config_docstring.py to update the config docstrings

[RyanJDick]

Looks good to me. I just did a basic smoke test - looks like others have done more rigorous testing.

A few minor things:

• Delete _ignore_xformers_triton_message_on_windows
• Delete logging.getLogger("xformers").addFilter(lambda record: "A matching Triton is not available" not in record.getMessage())
• Remove xformers instructions from 020_INSTALL_MANUAL.md

[ebr]

Only requesting changes here to ensure we don't merge this before testing on a couple of older GPUs. will test it asap

[ebr]

How critical is it to remove xformers completely vs leaving it as an option?

torch-sdp is 4.8x slower on older generation Pascal GPUs, like P40 or P100 or the Nvidia 10xx GPUs. For SDXL, this means 8.8 vs 1.8 seconds/iter

Other than that, torch-sdp is slightly faster on Ampere and Turing. Likely also on Ada, but i haven't tested that one.

[StAlKeR7779]

As I said - it cost nothing to support it further in code. But looks like most peoples thought it should be removed, so I removed.
I can easily return it.
Should we select attention type based on cuda compute capability that starting from 7.5 default is torch-sdp and for older ones default xformers(if available)?

[hipsterusername]

That seems reasonable, with a configurable override if user wants to force one.

Does look like we should add it back.

[ebr]

The PyTorch blog says Flash Attention is supported from sm80 compute capability onwards: https://pytorch.org/blog/accelerated-pytorch-2/, so perhaps we should default to xformers for anything lower than that. (As @hipsterusername said, with a configurable override).

[RyanJDick]

Not for this PR, but I did some performance testing and we'll probably want to address this at some point:

SDXL:

>>> Time taken to prepare attention processors: 0.10069823265075684s
>>> Time taken to prepare attention processors: 0.07877492904663086s
>>> Time taken to set attention processors: 0.1278061866760254s
>>> Time taken to reset attention processors: 0.13225793838500977s

Code used to measure:

defapply_custom_attention(self, unet: UNet2DConditionModel):
"""A context manager that patches `unet` with CustomAttnProcessor2_0 attention layers."""start=time.time()
attn_procs=self._prepare_attention_processors(unet)
time_1=time.time()
print(f">>> Time taken to prepare attention processors: {time_1-start}s")
orig_attn_processors=unet.attn_processorstime_2=time.time()
print(f">>> Time taken to prepare attention processors: {time_2-time_1}s")
try:
# Note to future devs: set_attn_processor(...) does something slightly unexpected - it pops elements from# the passed dict. So, if you wanted to keep the dict for future use, you'd have to make a# moderately-shallow copy of it. E.g. `attn_procs_copy = {k: v for k, v in attn_procs.items()}`.unet.set_attn_processor(attn_procs)
time_3=time.time()
print(f">>> Time taken to set attention processors: {time_3-time_2}s")
yieldNonefinally:
time_4=time.time()
unet.set_attn_processor(orig_attn_processors)
time_5=time.time()
print(f">>> Time taken to reset attention processors: {time_5-time_4}s")

[ebr]

Tested after changes, seeing expected performance increases on Ampere and no performance degradation on Pascal. LGTM!!

[RyanJDick]

I think this is just about good-to-go. There are a couple minor requests for docs, but otherwise the code looks good to me. (I haven't tested all cases myself, but it sounds like others have.)

[RyanJDick]

It looks like there was a significant re-write of the attention logic after the latest round of review and testing on this PR. @StAlKeR7779 can you shed some light on the benefits / motivation for that latest re-write?

Given the amount of testing and discussion that went into this branch before the re-write, I'm wondering if we should revert those latest changes, merge this PR, and then open a new PR with the changes. Let me know what you think.