[inductor] Remove comm-specific node attributes from scheduler

[peterbell10]

Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):

• [inductor] Kill mark_node_as_mutating #129346
• [inductor] Use multiple outputs for flex-attention #129344
• [inductor] Add FileCheck to flex attention epilogue test #129343
• [inductor] Make UserDefinedTritonKernel a multi-output operation #129325
• [inductor] Separate Buffer and Operation into two concepts #128893
• [inductor] Refactor fusion of inplace operations #128979
• -> [inductor] Remove comm-specific node attributes from scheduler #129084

cc @voznesenskym @penguinwu @EikanWang @jgong5 @Guobing-Chen @XiaobingSuper @zhuhaozhe @blzheng @wenzhe-nrv @jiayisunx @ipiszy @yf225 @chenyang78 @kadeng @muchulee8 @ColinPeppler @amjames @desertfire @chauhang

[pytorch-bot]

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/129084

• 📄 Preview Python docs built from this PR
• 📄 Preview C++ docs built from this PR
• ❓ Need help or want to give feedback on the CI? Visit the bot commands wiki or our office hours

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

✅ You can merge normally! (3 Unrelated Failures)

As of commit 448a992 with merge base b0ae0db ():

FLAKY - The following jobs failed but were likely due to flakiness present on trunk:

• trunk / macos-py3-arm64-mps / test (mps, 1, 1, macos-m1-13) (gh) (similar failure)
  test_mps.py::TestMPS::test_mps_allocator_module
• trunk / macos-py3-arm64-mps / test (mps, 1, 1, macos-m1-14) (gh) (similar failure)
  test_mps.py::TestMPS::test_mps_allocator_module

UNSTABLE - The following job failed but was likely due to flakiness present on trunk and has been marked as unstable:

• inductor / rocm6.1-py3.8-inductor / test (inductor, 1, 1, linux.rocm.gpu.2, unstable) (gh) (#128871)
  'test/inductor/test_max_autotune.py::TestTuningProcess::test_tuning_pool_multiple_devices'

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

[lezcano]

I worry that the tests have not caught that bug. Where is this code exercised?
Also, is this now recomputing everything every time it needs it? If so, we should probably benchmark and consider using a cache.

[lezcano]

This should be inverse_users.

[peterbell10]

Note that I swapped the order here, so A in node_users[B] <=> B in inverse_users[A]. There isn't really any point now though, so I guess I can revert.

[peterbell10]

@pytorchbot merge

[pytorchmergebot]

Merge started

Your change will be merged once all checks pass (ETA 0-4 Hours).

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