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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
[inductor] Added
smooth_l1_loss
refs #102077[inductor] Added
smooth_l1_loss
refs #102077Changes from all commits
5c0ae74
55a9a2e
c6ade94
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why do you need this conditional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Python nn functional API does the same:
pytorch/torch/nn/functional.py
Lines 3242 to 3245 in 76af221
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we have enough logic as to optimise this example out in practice, as it would mean that we need to prove that
(input-target).abs()
is not negative. The conditional is alright for now.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wdym?
.abs()
is non-negative. Functional API does this due to some numeric discrepancies in backward, this doesn't apply here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, my point simply comes from a perf perspective, wheere we would be computing both branches of the where and just using one, but probably LLVM should be able to catch the
< 0
after.abs()
and optimise it out.That being said, I still think that keeping this closer to core is better, as we could think of eventually registering this operation and simply differentiating through it to get its backward. This
beta==0
specialisation would make sure that this works in that case, as it does in master.