Skip to content

feat(z-image): run Z-Image attention on SageAttention when enabled - #9660

Draft
Pfannkuchensack wants to merge 15 commits into
invoke-ai:mainfrom
Pfannkuchensack:feat/sage-attention-z-image
Draft

Pfannkuchensack wants to merge 15 commits into
invoke-ai:mainfrom
Pfannkuchensack:feat/sage-attention-z-image

Conversation

@Pfannkuchensack

@Pfannkuchensack Pfannkuchensack commented Oct 3, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Note

Stacked PR 3 of 8: merge after #9659. It targets main, so until the PRs before it merge, its diff also shows their commits and the merges that carry them forward. This PR's own change is one commit, 6c8718945a.

Summary

With attention_backend: sage, Z-Image denoising enters the SageAttention scope from #9657, so its eligible attention calls run on SageAttention. Z-Image Control passes an attention mask and therefore stays on PyTorch SDPA, like everything outside the loop. The default auto is unchanged. The docs page lists Z-Image under Supported models.

Related Issues / Discussions

Stacked on #9657 (SageAttention backend) and #9659, the PR before it.

QA Instructions

Z-Image FP8, model loaded, three arms per seed as described in #9657:

1024² 2048²
Step, default SDPA 520 ms 3184 ms
Step, cuDNN-first SDPA 490 ms 2819 ms
Step, SageAttention 462 ms (−11 %) 2231 ms (−30 %)
Whole generation 10.4 → 10.0 s (−4 %) 33.7 → 25.9 s (−23 %)
Peak VRAM in the denoise scope unchanged unchanged
LPIPS against default SDPA, median (cuDNN-first) 0.154 (0.092) 0.168 (0.112)
  • Z-Image reacts strongly to any kernel change: even the exact cuDNN swap moves LPIPS to 0.09–0.11, and SageAttention stays within 1.7× of that. Blind side-by-side review: 8 of 8 pairs equal; the pair with the largest LPIPS (0.25) shows the same scene, sharpness and detail.
  • Per step, the 32 calls of the main and noise-refiner layers run on SageAttention; the two text-only context-refiner layers are below the size threshold and stay on SDPA.
  • Accuracy on real activations, every call of step 0 (32 calls): worst cosine 0.9970, relative L2 0.043.
  • The timings, LPIPS and blind review come from the measurement prototype, which still used sageattn()'s default K smoothing; the selection feat(attention): add opt-in SageAttention backend for diffusion models #9657 ships is faster per call.

To try it: install SageAttention as the docs page from #9657 describes, set attention_backend: sage, restart and generate with Z-Image. The first generation logs SageAttention ... serves diffusion-model attention on cuda:0 (...) with the GPU and kernel name, and with log_level: debug every generation logs how many calls ran on SageAttention and why the others did not. With attention_backend: auto the output is bit-identical to main.

Checks: ruff clean; pytest tests/app/invocations passes with the whole stack applied (2090 passed). No call-site test was added: this change only enters the scope, whose behavior #9657 tests.

Review

No material findings for this call site. Z-Image Control gains nothing until its mask is handled (possible follow-up).

Compatibility / Rollout

Merge after #9659. No API or persisted-state change; only attention_backend: sage behaves differently.

Checklist

  • The PR has a short but descriptive title, suitable for a changelog
  • Meaningful regression coverage added / updated where needed; obsolete tests/code removed
  • Persisted-state and API changes include required migrations / compatibility validation
  • Relevant performance/efficiency opportunities considered; material claims have evidence
  • Material review findings resolved and relevant checks rerun
  • Documentation added / updated (if applicable)
  • Updated What's New copy (if doing a release after this PR)

New `attention_backend: auto | sage` setting; with `sage`, eligible PyTorch SDPA calls inside a denoising scope run on SageAttention 2.2 and every other call keeps SDPA unchanged.
Each GPU's first SageAttention call is checked against SDPA and a failing GPU falls back for the session; no model family enters the scope yet.
Adds the SageAttention docs page and the regenerated config schema.
With `attention_backend: sage`, FLUX.1 denoising, including ControlNets inside the loop, enters the SageAttention scope.
RTX 4090, FLUX.1 dev FP8: 16.1 s → 14.0 s at 1024², 84.2 s → 54.8 s at 2048², peak VRAM unchanged; a blind review judged no image worse.
With `attention_backend: sage`, FLUX.2 denoising enters the SageAttention scope.
RTX 4090, FLUX.2 Klein 9B FP8: 15.6 s → 15.1 s at 1024², 27.1 s → 23.1 s at 2048², peak VRAM unchanged; a blind review judged no image worse.
With `attention_backend: sage`, Z-Image denoising enters the SageAttention scope; Z-Image Control masks its attention and keeps SDPA.
RTX 4090, Z-Image FP8: 10.4 s → 10.0 s at 1024², 33.7 s → 25.9 s at 2048², peak VRAM unchanged; a blind review judged no image worse.
@github-actions github-actions Bot added python PRs that change python files invocations PRs that change invocations backend PRs that change backend files services PRs that change app services python-tests PRs that change python tests docs PRs that change docs labels Oct 3, 2026
…ent SageAttention failures

sm86 now runs the Triton kernel upstream's sageattn picks there, and sm87 gets none; the Windows build's CUDA routing for both is unexplained and unmeasured here.
Out-of-memory and Triton cache errors fall back to SDPA for that call (three retire the device), and the first-call check runs per precision and head size.
The kernel runs with the tensors' device current, so a single-device install on cuda:1 uses SageAttention too.
An out-of-memory error now moves only the rest of that generation to SDPA, logged once, instead of counting toward retiring the device; out-of-memory is recognised by the shared is_oom_error.
Only Triton cache failures in a row retire a device, and a success resets the count.
# Conflicts:
#	invokeai/frontend/api/openapi.json
@JPPhoto JPPhoto assigned lstein and unassigned JPPhoto Oct 9, 2026

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

7.0.0 backend PRs that change backend files docs PRs that change docs invocations PRs that change invocations python PRs that change python files python-tests PRs that change python tests services PRs that change app services

Projects

Status: No status

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants