Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Remove MAX_STACK_ENTRY from _build_table #126583

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Remove MAX_STACK_ENTRY from _build_table #126583

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sraikund16
Copy link
Contributor

Summary:
As reported by this issue: #83584

We already store the entries in evt.stack so there is no need to cap the limit when we output the table to 5

Test Plan: Regression testing should cover this. We have unit tests to check the stack already.

Differential Revision: D57513565

@pytorch-bot PyTorch Bot
Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented May 17, 2024 •
edited

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/126583

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

✅ You can merge normally! (1 Unrelated Failure)

As of commit 76b50c1 with merge base 2068dad (image):

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.

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D57513565

@sraikund16 @facebook-github-bot
Remove MAX_STACK_ENTRY from _build_table (pytorch#126583)
76b50c1 
Summary:

As reported by this issue: pytorch#83584

We already store the entries in evt.stack so there is no need to cap the limit when we output the table to 5

Test Plan: Regression testing should cover this. We have unit tests to check the stack already.

Differential Revision: D57513565
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D57513565

nmacchioni
nmacchioni approved these changes May 21, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@nmacchioni nmacchioni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@pytorch-bot pytorch-bot bot added the ciflow/trunk Trigger trunk jobs on your pull request label May 21, 2024
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@pytorchbot merge -f 'Landed internally'

(Initiating merge automatically since Phabricator Diff has merged, using force because this PR might not pass merge_rules.json but landed internally)

@pytorchmergebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Merge started

Your change will be merged immediately since you used the force (-f) flag, bypassing any CI checks (ETA: 1-5 minutes). Please use -f as last resort and instead consider -i/--ignore-current to continue the merge ignoring current failures. This will allow currently pending tests to finish and report signal before the merge.

Learn more about merging in the wiki.

Questions? Feedback? Please reach out to the PyTorch DevX Team

Advanced Debugging
Check the merge workflow status
here

@sraikund16 sraikund16 mentioned this pull request May 22, 2024
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@nmacchioni nmacchioni nmacchioni approved these changes

@aaronenyeshi aaronenyeshi Awaiting requested review from aaronenyeshi aaronenyeshi is a code owner

@briancoutinho briancoutinho Awaiting requested review from briancoutinho

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
ciflow/trunk Trigger trunk jobs on your pull request fb-exported Merged
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@sraikund16 @facebook-github-bot @pytorchmergebot @nmacchioni