-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix Flux multiple Lora loading bug #10388
Merged
yiyixuxu
merged 10 commits into
huggingface:main
from
maxs-kan:flux-lora-base_layer-check
Jan 2, 2025
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f099b2f
check for base_layer key in transformer state dict
maxs-kan db010ae
Merge branch 'main' into flux-lora-base_layer-check
hlky bdc5de5
Merge branch 'main' into flux-lora-base_layer-check
sayakpaul 3a4f8a4
test_lora_expansion_works_for_absent_keys
hlky da00c8d
Merge branch 'main' into flux-lora-base_layer-check
hlky a2cdcda
check
hlky c8d4a1c
Update tests/lora/test_lora_layers_flux.py
hlky 75268c0
check
hlky 08ea124
test_lora_expansion_works_for_absent_keys/test_lora_expansion_works_f…
hlky 5a7997b
absent->extra
hlky File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -2460,13 +2460,17 @@ def _maybe_expand_lora_state_dict(cls, transformer, lora_state_dict): | |
if unexpected_modules: | ||
logger.debug(f"Found unexpected modules: {unexpected_modules}. These will be ignored.") | ||
|
||
is_peft_loaded = getattr(transformer, "peft_config", None) is not None | ||
transformer_base_layer_keys = { | ||
k[: -len(".base_layer.weight")] for k in transformer_state_dict.keys() if ".base_layer.weight" in k | ||
} | ||
for k in lora_module_names: | ||
if k in unexpected_modules: | ||
continue | ||
|
||
base_param_name = ( | ||
f"{k.replace(prefix, '')}.base_layer.weight" if is_peft_loaded else f"{k.replace(prefix, '')}.weight" | ||
f"{k.replace(prefix, '')}.base_layer.weight" | ||
if k in transformer_base_layer_keys | ||
else f"{k.replace(prefix, '')}.weight" | ||
) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. base_param_name = f"{k.replace(prefix, '')}.weight"
base_layer_name = f"{k.replace(prefix, '')}.base_layer.weight"
if is_peft_loaded and base_layer_name in transformer_state_dict:
base_param_name = base_layer_name Something like this might be better. |
||
base_weight_param = transformer_state_dict[base_param_name] | ||
lora_A_param = lora_state_dict[f"{prefix}{k}.lora_A.weight"] | ||
|
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note
base_layer
substring can only be present when the underlying pipeline has at least one LoRA loaded that affects the layer under consideration. So, perhaps it's better to have anis_peft_loaded
check?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In your PR description you mention:
Note that we may also have an opposite situation i.e., the first LoRA ckpt may have the params while the second LoRA may not. This is what I considered in #10388.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if is_peft_loaded and ".base_layer.weight" in k
might be clearer that this is something when a lora is already loaded.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The case where the first LoRA has extra weights than the second is ok on
main
Hyper-FLUX.1-dev-8steps-lora.safetensors
Purz/choose-your-own-adventure
or
alimama-creative/FLUX.1-Turbo-Alpha
TTPlanet/Migration_Lora_flux
In this case
base_param_name
is set to f"{k.replace(prefix, '')}.base_layer.weight" for the 2nd LoRA and all keys exist.If loaded in the reverse order
f"{k.replace(prefix, '')}.base_layer.weight"
doesn't exist for the extra weights.Purz/choose-your-own-adventure
Hyper-FLUX.1-dev-8steps-lora.safetensors
or
TTPlanet/Migration_Lora_flux
alimama-creative/FLUX.1-Turbo-Alpha
KeyError context_embedder.base_layer.weight
So for the extra weights we use
f"{k.replace(prefix, '')}.weight"
. If another LoRA were loaded withcontext_embedder
it would then usecontext_embedder.base_layer.weight
.We could
continue
iff"{k.replace(prefix, '')}.base_layer.weight"
is not found but the extra weights may need to be expanded.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In this case, we are considering that LoRA params for certain modules exist in the first checkpoint while they don't exist in the second checkpoint (or any other subsequent checkpoint).
In this case, we don't want to expand no? Or am I missing something? Perhaps better expressed through a short test case like the one I added here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The test case passes on
main
, the test case should be in the reverse order:I think we still want to check whether the param needs to be expanded
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cool, I understand it better now. Thanks!
Might be better to ship this PR with proper testing then. Okay with me.