[C10D] dedup send/recv impls #140815
Closed
[C10D] dedup send/recv impls #140815
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
Avoid copypaste of send/isend and recv/irecv impl. This does change the warning issued from send to include the identifier "isend" instead of "send", but I think thats not a big deal. [ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/140815
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ❗ 1 Active SEVsThere are 1 currently active SEVs. If your PR is affected, please view them below: ✅ No FailuresAs of commit fbef814 with merge base de34f58 ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
pytorch-bot
bot
added
oncall: distributed
This was referenced Nov 15, 2024
Avoid copypaste of send/isend and recv/irecv impl. This does change the warning issued from send to include the identifier "isend" instead of "send", but I think thats not a big deal. cc H-Huang awgu kwen2501 wanchaol fegin fduwjj wz337 d4l3k c-p-i-o [ghstack-poisoned]
Avoid copypaste of send/isend and recv/irecv impl. This does change the warning issued from send to include the identifier "isend" instead of "send", but I think thats not a big deal. cc H-Huang awgu kwen2501 wanchaol fegin fduwjj wz337 d4l3k c-p-i-o [ghstack-poisoned]
fegin
approved these changes
Nov 15, 2024
Avoid copypaste of send/isend and recv/irecv impl. This does change the warning issued from send to include the identifier "isend" instead of "send", but I think thats not a big deal. cc H-Huang awgu kwen2501 wanchaol fegin fduwjj wz337 d4l3k c-p-i-o [ghstack-poisoned]
Avoid copypaste of send/isend and recv/irecv impl. This does change the warning issued from send to include the identifier "isend" instead of "send", but I think thats not a big deal. cc H-Huang awgu kwen2501 wanchaol fegin fduwjj wz337 d4l3k c-p-i-o [ghstack-poisoned]
pytorchmergebot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 16, 2024
Faced with an annoying string of warnings like this when running tests, <img width="1644" alt="Screenshot 2024-11-15 at 11 23 21 AM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/91ff4e1d-3c29-4510-9a61-46e7df68a212"> My choices seem to be (1) call destroy_process_group() at the end of each test fn, (2) do this in some wrapper, (3) do it in the base test class. Since tests in MultiProcessTestCase are responsible for calling init_process_group themselves, they should also be responsible for calling destroy (or at least method (3) would be asymmetric and may result in double-destroy). But it doesn't feel worth it to go add a destroy call manually to each test, and try/except for a possible second destroy call seems like a happy middle ground. Note: tests that want to ensure that destroy runs cleanly can and should still call destroy _inside_ the test, and this change does not affect that. Pull Request resolved: #140820 Approved by: https://github.com/fegin ghstack dependencies: #140460, #140815
Closed
wconstab
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 17, 2024
Faced with an annoying string of warnings like this when running tests, <img width="1644" alt="Screenshot 2024-11-15 at 11 23 21 AM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/91ff4e1d-3c29-4510-9a61-46e7df68a212"> My choices seem to be (1) call destroy_process_group() at the end of each test fn, (2) do this in some wrapper, (3) do it in the base test class. Since tests in MultiProcessTestCase are responsible for calling init_process_group themselves, they should also be responsible for calling destroy (or at least method (3) would be asymmetric and may result in double-destroy). But it doesn't feel worth it to go add a destroy call manually to each test, and try/except for a possible second destroy call seems like a happy middle ground. Note: tests that want to ensure that destroy runs cleanly can and should still call destroy _inside_ the test, and this change does not affect that. Pull Request resolved: #140820 Approved by: https://github.com/fegin ghstack dependencies: #140460, #140815 ghstack-source-id: 06deddd
Ryo-not-rio
pushed a commit
to Ryo-not-rio/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2024
Avoid copypaste of send/isend and recv/irecv impl. This does change the warning issued from send to include the identifier "isend" instead of "send", but I think thats not a big deal. Pull Request resolved: pytorch#140815 Approved by: https://github.com/fegin ghstack dependencies: pytorch#140460
Ryo-not-rio
pushed a commit
to Ryo-not-rio/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2024
…40820) Faced with an annoying string of warnings like this when running tests, <img width="1644" alt="Screenshot 2024-11-15 at 11 23 21 AM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/91ff4e1d-3c29-4510-9a61-46e7df68a212"> My choices seem to be (1) call destroy_process_group() at the end of each test fn, (2) do this in some wrapper, (3) do it in the base test class. Since tests in MultiProcessTestCase are responsible for calling init_process_group themselves, they should also be responsible for calling destroy (or at least method (3) would be asymmetric and may result in double-destroy). But it doesn't feel worth it to go add a destroy call manually to each test, and try/except for a possible second destroy call seems like a happy middle ground. Note: tests that want to ensure that destroy runs cleanly can and should still call destroy _inside_ the test, and this change does not affect that. Pull Request resolved: pytorch#140820 Approved by: https://github.com/fegin ghstack dependencies: pytorch#140460, pytorch#140815
pobin6
pushed a commit
to pobin6/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2024
Avoid copypaste of send/isend and recv/irecv impl. This does change the warning issued from send to include the identifier "isend" instead of "send", but I think thats not a big deal. Pull Request resolved: pytorch#140815 Approved by: https://github.com/fegin ghstack dependencies: pytorch#140460
pobin6
pushed a commit
to pobin6/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2024
…40820) Faced with an annoying string of warnings like this when running tests, <img width="1644" alt="Screenshot 2024-11-15 at 11 23 21 AM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/91ff4e1d-3c29-4510-9a61-46e7df68a212"> My choices seem to be (1) call destroy_process_group() at the end of each test fn, (2) do this in some wrapper, (3) do it in the base test class. Since tests in MultiProcessTestCase are responsible for calling init_process_group themselves, they should also be responsible for calling destroy (or at least method (3) would be asymmetric and may result in double-destroy). But it doesn't feel worth it to go add a destroy call manually to each test, and try/except for a possible second destroy call seems like a happy middle ground. Note: tests that want to ensure that destroy runs cleanly can and should still call destroy _inside_ the test, and this change does not affect that. Pull Request resolved: pytorch#140820 Approved by: https://github.com/fegin ghstack dependencies: pytorch#140460, pytorch#140815
fightingand
pushed a commit
to fightingand/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2024
Avoid copypaste of send/isend and recv/irecv impl. This does change the warning issued from send to include the identifier "isend" instead of "send", but I think thats not a big deal. ghstack-source-id: d268b45 Pull Request resolved: pytorch/pytorch#140815
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):
Avoid copypaste of send/isend and recv/irecv impl.
This does change the warning issued from send to include the identifier
"isend" instead of "send", but I think thats not a big deal.
cc @H-Huang @awgu @kwen2501 @wanchaol @fegin @fduwjj @wz337 @d4l3k @c-p-i-o