[dynamo][refactor] Remaining cleanup from config-cleanup of enable_cpp_guard_manager #139040
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
…p_guard_manager [ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/139040
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ❌ 1 New Failure, 1 Unrelated FailureAs of commit 1162a63 with merge base f9ae3fa ( NEW FAILURE - The following job has failed:
BROKEN TRUNK - The following job failed but were present on the merge base:👉 Rebase onto the `viable/strict` branch to avoid these failures
This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
This was referenced Oct 28, 2024
…f enable_cpp_guard_manager" cc voznesenskym penguinwu EikanWang jgong5 Guobing-Chen XiaobingSuper zhuhaozhe blzheng wenzhe-nrv jiayisunx chenyang78 kadeng chauhang amjames rec [ghstack-poisoned]
anijain2305
added
topic: not user facing
williamwen42
approved these changes
Oct 28, 2024
jansel
approved these changes
Oct 29, 2024
pytorchmergebot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
This is another unsound guard eval optimization. Its rare in practice to compile a function with two different parameters as inputs, and then later call the function with one parameter input as two different inputs (aliasing). This further reduces guard overhead from 280 us to 240 us for the model in #138386 Pull Request resolved: #138954 Approved by: https://github.com/jansel ghstack dependencies: #139040
pytorchmergebot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
This brings some unsoundness in guards. Earlier we were skipping empty nn module hooks dict guard only on inbuilt nn modules, but as seen in #138386, there could be still be significant guard overhead. With this PR, we reduce the guard eval latency from 420 us to 280 us (1.5x reduction). Pull Request resolved: #138942 Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang, https://github.com/jansel ghstack dependencies: #139040, #138954
rahulsingh-intel
pushed a commit
to rahulsingh-intel/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
…p_guard_manager (pytorch#139040) Pull Request resolved: pytorch#139040 Approved by: https://github.com/williamwen42, https://github.com/jansel
rahulsingh-intel
pushed a commit
to rahulsingh-intel/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
…h#138954) This is another unsound guard eval optimization. Its rare in practice to compile a function with two different parameters as inputs, and then later call the function with one parameter input as two different inputs (aliasing). This further reduces guard overhead from 280 us to 240 us for the model in pytorch#138386 Pull Request resolved: pytorch#138954 Approved by: https://github.com/jansel ghstack dependencies: pytorch#139040
rahulsingh-intel
pushed a commit
to rahulsingh-intel/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
This brings some unsoundness in guards. Earlier we were skipping empty nn module hooks dict guard only on inbuilt nn modules, but as seen in pytorch#138386, there could be still be significant guard overhead. With this PR, we reduce the guard eval latency from 420 us to 280 us (1.5x reduction). Pull Request resolved: pytorch#138942 Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang, https://github.com/jansel ghstack dependencies: pytorch#139040, pytorch#138954
rahulsingh-intel
pushed a commit
to rahulsingh-intel/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 5, 2024
…p_guard_manager (pytorch#139040) Pull Request resolved: pytorch#139040 Approved by: https://github.com/williamwen42, https://github.com/jansel
rahulsingh-intel
pushed a commit
to rahulsingh-intel/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 5, 2024
…h#138954) This is another unsound guard eval optimization. Its rare in practice to compile a function with two different parameters as inputs, and then later call the function with one parameter input as two different inputs (aliasing). This further reduces guard overhead from 280 us to 240 us for the model in pytorch#138386 Pull Request resolved: pytorch#138954 Approved by: https://github.com/jansel ghstack dependencies: pytorch#139040
rahulsingh-intel
pushed a commit
to rahulsingh-intel/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 5, 2024
This brings some unsoundness in guards. Earlier we were skipping empty nn module hooks dict guard only on inbuilt nn modules, but as seen in pytorch#138386, there could be still be significant guard overhead. With this PR, we reduce the guard eval latency from 420 us to 280 us (1.5x reduction). Pull Request resolved: pytorch#138942 Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang, https://github.com/jansel ghstack dependencies: pytorch#139040, pytorch#138954
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
cc @voznesenskym @penguinwu @EikanWang @jgong5 @Guobing-Chen @XiaobingSuper @zhuhaozhe @blzheng @wenzhe-nrv @jiayisunx @chenyang78 @kadeng @chauhang @amjames @rec