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.

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

PyTorch: fix checksums of Intel sources that moved to oneAPI #10367

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 10, 2020

Conversation

lexming
Copy link
Contributor

@lexming lexming commented Apr 9, 2020

(created using eb --new-pr)

Changes in the affected sources are just cosmetic due to the move of Intel stuff to oneAPI.

This one will be a pain to test...
Can be easily tested with eb --stop source --from-pr 10367 --upload-test-report

@lexming lexming added this to the next release (4.2.0) milestone Apr 9, 2020
@lexming lexming added the change label Apr 9, 2020
@boegel boegel changed the title PyTorch: fix cheksums of Intel sources that moved to oneAPI PyTorch: fix checksums of Intel sources that moved to oneAPI Apr 9, 2020
@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Apr 9, 2020

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 6 out of 6 (6 easyconfigs in this PR)
node2671.swalot.os - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 v3 @ 2.60GHz (haswell), Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/7a23b1be2de253a01006fd06ff9fdd69 for a full test report.

edit: full disclosure: test report created with eb --stop-source --sourcepath /tmp, so only checksums are checked, not the actual installation with the new tarballs for mkl-dnn and tbb

@lexming
Copy link
Contributor Author

lexming commented Apr 9, 2020

Test report by @lexming
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 6 out of 6 (6 easyconfigs in this PR)
login2.cerberus.os - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6126 CPU @ 2.60GHz, Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/141bf4e3db685a6686b1ad2fb178a6fe for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Apr 9, 2020

Test report by @boegel
FAILED
Build succeeded for 0 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
node3112.skitty.os - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6140 CPU @ 2.30GHz (skylake_avx512), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/4ab4e2ba205e637db08142f7456c5560 for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Apr 9, 2020

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
node2671.swalot.os - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 v3 @ 2.60GHz (haswell), Python 2.7.5
See https://gist.github.com/4d88b8cf1a18fa7ea428c77fc40b98bc for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Apr 9, 2020

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
node3112.skitty.os - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6140 CPU @ 2.30GHz (skylake_avx512), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/9cab9988f098bb4cf7306a79c5c766f2 for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Apr 9, 2020

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
node3300.joltik.os - Linux centos linux 7.7.1908, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6242 CPU @ 2.80GHz (cascadelake), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/8a2c61ed92ec8f861136dd0bb08890a6 for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Apr 9, 2020

Test report by @boegel
SUCCESS
Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in this PR)
generoso - Linux centos linux 7.6.1810, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 v4 @ 2.00GHz, Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/9921f2cb00aa718d7f3c5ae5d36fe43a for a full test report.

Copy link
Member

@boegel boegel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Apr 10, 2020

Going in, thanks @lexming!

@boegel boegel merged commit 4b1b1e5 into easybuilders:develop Apr 10, 2020
@lexming lexming deleted the 20200409165533_new_pr_PyTorch120 branch April 10, 2020 21:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants