Fix incorrect tile_latent_min_width calculations#11305
Merged
Merged
Conversation
a-r-r-o-w
approved these changes
Apr 13, 2025
Contributor
a-r-r-o-w
left a comment
a-r-r-o-w
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tysm for the awesome catch! 👁️
|
The docs for this PR live here. All of your documentation changes will be reflected on that endpoint. The docs are available until 30 days after the last update. |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What does this PR do?
This PR fixes the same issue that was recently addressed in AutoencoderKLMochi, where
tile_latent_min_widthwas incorrectly calculated usingtile_sample_stride_widthinstead oftile_sample_min_width.The same mistake was found in the following autoencoders:
This update ensures consistent and correct behavior across all affected models when VAE tiling is enabled.
Fixes: #11291.
Who can review?
@a-r-r-o-w