### Description
Allow WebGPU backend to specify `preferredLayout`. Default is NHWC.
```js
const options = {executionProviders: [{name:'webgpu', preferredLayout: 'NCHW'}]};
sess1 = await ort.InferenceSession.create('./mobilenetv2-12.onnx', options);
```
### Motivation and Context
- implement @qjia7's requirement for an easier way to do performance
comparison between NCHW vs NHWC.
- It's possible that NCHW does better on some models and NHWC on others.
So offer user the capability to switch.
**Description**:
This PR intends to enable WebNN EP in ONNX Runtime Web. It translates
the ONNX nodes by [WebNN
API](https://webmachinelearning.github.io/webnn/), which is implemented
in C++ and uses Emscripten [Embind
API](https://emscripten.org/docs/porting/connecting_cpp_and_javascript/embind.html#).
Temporarily using preferred layout **NHWC** for WebNN graph partitions
since the restriction in WebNN XNNPack backend implementation and the
ongoing
[discussion](https://github.com/webmachinelearning/webnn/issues/324) in
WebNN spec that whether WebNN should support both 'NHWC' and 'NCHW'
layouts. No WebNN native EP, only for Web.
**Motivation and Context**:
Allow ONNXRuntime Web developers to access WebNN API to benefit from
hardware acceleration.
**WebNN API Implementation Status in Chromium**:
- Tracked in Chromium issue:
[#1273291](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1273291)
- **CPU device**: based on XNNPack backend, and had been available on
Chrome Canary M112 behind "#enable-experimental-web-platform-features"
flag for Windows and Linux platforms. Further implementation for more
ops is ongoing.
- **GPU device**: based on DML, implementation is ongoing.
**Open**:
- GitHub CI: WebNN currently is only available on Chrome Canary/Dev with
XNNPack backend for Linux and Windows. This is an open to reviewers to
help identify which GitHub CI should involved the WebNN EP and guide me
to enable it. Thanks!
### Description
This change introduced the following new components into ONNX Runtime
Web:
- JavaScript Execution Provider (JSEP)
- Asynchronized inferencing execution powered by Emscripten's Asyncify
- WebGPU backend implemented in TypeScript
- initial implementation of kernels:
- elementwise operators (22)
- binary operators (5)
- tensor: Shape, Reshape, Transpose, Gemm
- nn: Conv, {Global}Maxpool, {Global}AveragePool
Code need to be polished. still working on it.
## Q&A
What is JSEP?
> JSEP, aka JavaScript Execution Provider, is a new ONNXRuntime
execution provider that specifically works on Web environment
(browsers). JSEP allows JavaScript code to kick in from various places
when ONNX Runtime inferences a model.
Why JSEP?
> JSEP is a hybrid mode EP that contains both C/C++ and
TypeScript/JavaScript implementation. There are 2 strong reasons why we
introduces JSEP:
> 1. the C/C++ part helps JSEP to leverage ONNX Runtime's capabilities
as much as possible including graph transformer, optimizers and also the
capabilities to fallback to CPU EP. TypeScript/JavaScript helps JSEP to
develop and debug much easier in the browser for the kernel
implementation.
> 2. the requirement of asynchronized execution from JavaScript API (eg.
`buffer.mapAsync()`) makes it impossible to run `OrtRun()` in a
synchronized context (see "async problem" section below). This is done
by using Emscripten's Asyncify.
What is WebGPU?
> WebGPU is the new GPU API that available in browser. It's one of the
only 2 APIs that currently available to access the GPU from browser (the
other is WebGL).
> WebGPU is designed with more advanced and stronger features comparing
to WebGL and is potentially solution that offer the best GPU performance
for model inferencing that currently available.
What is the async problem and why we have the problem?
> The "async problem" is a problem that you cannot call an async
function in a synchronous context. Think about the following C++ code:
> ```c
> // C-style declarations (API)
> typedef void (*ON_COMPLETE)(PVOID state, DATA *data);
> void read_data_from_file(FILEHANDLE file, ON_COMPLETE on_complete);
>
> // implementation
> DATA * my_impl_read_data_from_file_sync(FILEHANDLE file) {
> // how to implement?
> }
> ```
> The answer is, it's impossible to implement this function. Usually we
try to find a sync version API, or launch a thread to call the async
function and sync-wait on the main thread. Unfortunately, in browser
environment, neither is possible.
>
> WebGPU does not offer any synchronized API for data downloading (GPU
to CPU). This is the only operation that MUST be async. As `OrtRun()`
will eventually call into DataTransfer for copy data from GPU to CPU,
and `OrtRun()` is a synchronized function, this cannot be done in normal
way.
What is Emscripten? How is the Asyncify feature resolved the problem?
> Emscripten is the C/C++ compiler for WebAssembly. It's what we use to
compile ORT and generates the WebAssembly artifacts which runs on
browsers.
>
> Asyncify is a [compiler
feature](https://emscripten.org/docs/porting/asyncify.html) that allows
calling async functions from a synchronized context. In short, it
generates code to unwind and rewind call stack to emulate async
execution. With this feature, we are able to call the async function
inside `OrtRun()` call.
## Design Overview
**Inter-op**
JSEP is doing pretty much same thing to just another EP. It exposes an
interface for inter-op with JavaScript, which is defined in
onnxruntime/wasm/js_internal_api.js:
```js
// init JSEP
Module["jsepInit"] = function (backend, alloc, free, copy, copyAsync, createKernel, releaseKernel, run) {
Module.jsepBackend = backend;
Module.jsepAlloc = alloc;
Module.jsepFree = free;
Module.jsepCopy = copy;
Module.jsepCopyAsync = copyAsync;
Module.jsepCreateKernel = createKernel;
Module.jsepReleaseKernel = releaseKernel;
Module.jsepRun = run;
};
```
This simple JavaScript snippet defines all language barrier level
functions that requires by JSEP to achieve implementing kernels and data
transfers using JavaScript inside ONNX Runtime:
- `jsepBackend`: assign the singleton object to webassembly module
- `jsepAlloc` and `jsepFree`: implementation of data transfer's Alloc()
and Free()
- `jsepCopy`: synchronized copy ( GPU to GPU, CPU to GPU)
- `jsepCopyAsync`: asynchronized copy ( GPU to CPU)
- `jsepCreateKernel` and `jsepReleaseKernel`: a corresponding object
that maintained in JS to match lifecycle of Kernel in ORT
- `jsepRun`: OpKernel::Compute() should call into this
The abstraction above allows to tie as little as possible connections
and dependencies between C/C++ and TypeScript/JavaScript.
**Resource Management**
Lifecycle of tensor data and kernels are managed by ORT(C/C++) but the
implementation are left to JavaScript. JavaScript code are responsible
to implement the callbacks correctly.
For WebGPU, the GPU data is managed by JavaScript using a singleton map
(tensot_data_id => GPUBuffer). GPU pipeline is managed as singleton.
Shaders are managed using a singletonmap (shader_key => gpu_program),
while shader_key is generated by cache_key (OP specific, including
attributes) and input shapes.
**about data transfer**
`js::DataTransfer::CopyTensor` implemented to call either synchronized
or asynchronized copy callback, depending on the destination is GPU or
not. Emscripten's macro `EM_ASYNC_JS` is used to wrap the async function
to be called in the synchronized context.
**run kernel in JS**
Kernel class constructor calls once `jsepCreateKernel()` with an
optional per-kernel specific serialization to pass attributes into
JavaScript.
`Compute()` are implemented in a way that a metadata serialization is
performed in a base class and JavaScript code can access the data using
the Emscripten specific builtin macro `EM_ASM_*`.
**disabled features**
memory pattern is force disabled, because the WebGPU data is not
presented by a general memory model (a buffer can be represented by
offset + size).
concurrent run support is disabled. WebGPU is stateful and it also has
async function call. To support concurrent run will significantly
increase the complexity and we don't get any real benefit from it.
**prefer channels last**
JSEP prefers channels last and returns `DataLayout::NHWC` in method
`GetPreferredLayout()`. This will let the graph transformers to
preprocess the graph into a channels last form so that a more optimized
WebGPU shader can be used.
**Testing code**
It's impossible to test JSEP directly because JSEP itself does not
contain any kernel implementation. However, it has the kernel
registration which need to work together with the corresponding
JavaScript code. There are unit tests that run onnx models from
JavaScript API.
---------
Co-authored-by: Scott McKay <skottmckay@gmail.com>
### Description
optimize default session options parsing.
- do minimal property assignment to the passed in `options` object.
- modify default value of `enableCpuMemArena` and `enableMemPattern` to
`false`. We don't get benefits from enabling these 2 flags in web
assembly
### Description
* Support flag 'optimizedModelFilePath' in session options.
In Node.js, the model will be saved into filesystem just like its
behaviour on native platforms.
In browser, the new model is not saved to filesystem. the file path is
ignored. Instead, a new pop-up window will be launched in browser and
user can 'save' the file as onnx model.
* Add corresponding commandline args for the following session option
flags:
- optimizedModelFilePath
- graphOptimizationLevel
**Description**: This PR adds support for "XNNPACK EP" in ORTWeb and
changes the behavior of how ORTWeb deals with "backends", or "EPs" in
API.
**Background**: Term "backend" is introduced in ONNX.js to representing
a TypeScript type which implements a "backend" interface, which is a
similar but different concept to ORT's EP (execution provider). There
was 3 backends in ONNX.js: "cpu", "wasm" and "webgl".
When ORT Web is launched, the concept is derived to help users to
integrate smoothly. Technically, when "wasm" backend is used, users need
to also specify "EP" in the session options. Considering it may get
complicated and confused for users to figure out the difference between
"backend" and "EP", the JS API hide the "backend" concept and made a
mapping between names, backends and EPs:
"webgl" (Name) <==> "onnxjsBackend" (Backend)
"wasm" (Name) <==> "wasmBackend" (Backend) <==> "CPU" (EP)
**Details**:
The following changes are applied in this PR:
1. allow multi-registration for backends using the same name. This is
for use scenarios where both "onnxruntime-node" and "onnxruntime-web"
are consumed in a Node.js App ( so "cpu" will be registered twice in
this scenario. )
2. re-assign priority values to backends. I give 100 as base to "cpu"
for node and react_native, and 10 as base to "cpu" in web.
3. add "cpu", "xnnpack" as new names of backends.
4. update onnxruntime wasm exported functions to support EP
registration.
5. update implementations in ort web to handle execution providers in
session options.
6. add '--use_xnnpack' as default build flag for ort-web
* [js/web] support string tensor for wasm backend
* disable v9/test_cast_STRING_to_FLOAT: test data is wrong
* add non-string check
* Update session-handler.ts
* Update session-handler.ts
* add all session options and run options in C API except AddInitializer and AddFreeDimensionOverride
* remove unnecessary comment
* change extra session and run options to object notation
* resolve comments
* use an optional chaining for options
* resolve comments
