-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22k
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
Dispatch to mv rather than mm in the case that tensor1.ndim == 1 and tensor2.ndim == 2 #75195
Conversation
…tensor2.ndim == 2 This should hopefully be faster, it makes the calling code simpler, and it solves a bug when using matmul with the out= parameter (before it would throw an incorrect error). [ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful links
💊 CI failures summary and remediationsAs of commit debf0bf (more details on the Dr. CI page): Expand to see more
🕵️ 1 new failure recognized by patternsThe following CI failures do not appear to be due to upstream breakages
|
…m == 1 and tensor2.ndim == 2" This should hopefully be faster, it makes the calling code simpler, and it solves a bug when using matmul with the out= parameter (before it would throw an incorrect error). [ghstack-poisoned]
…m == 1 and tensor2.ndim == 2" This should hopefully be faster, it makes the calling code simpler, and it solves a bug when using matmul with the out= parameter (before it would throw an incorrect error). [ghstack-poisoned]
@ezyang This PR shows (or will show, once the CI of the previous PRs is green) that this is the line that's causing trouble. We get this error: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/runs/5820894454?check_suite_focus=true in the distributed build. I have tried to track down what could be causing it, and following the execution of the trace that it throws, I don't see how that state could be reached. It's also particularly odd that this just happens in some random test in a distributed setting... |
…m == 1 and tensor2.ndim == 2" This should hopefully be faster, it makes the calling code simpler, and it solves a bug when using matmul with the out= parameter (before it would throw an incorrect error). [ghstack-poisoned]
Can you repro it locally? I looked over the patch and it looks... fine-ish? The contiguous changes look a little skeevy |
I could not reproduce it locally. This PR should just be one line. I pushed some further changes to start debugging it via CI, but this is certainly not the best approach. Once we had access to sshing into the jobs, but J believe that's not working atm... |
…m == 1 and tensor2.ndim == 2" This should hopefully be faster, it makes the calling code simpler, and it solves a bug when using matmul with the out= parameter (before it would throw an incorrect error). [ghstack-poisoned]
…m == 1 and tensor2.ndim == 2" This should hopefully be faster, it makes the calling code simpler, and it solves a bug when using matmul with the out= parameter (before it would throw an incorrect error). [ghstack-poisoned]
…m == 1 and tensor2.ndim == 2" This should hopefully be faster, it makes the calling code simpler, and it solves a bug when using matmul with the out= parameter (before it would throw an incorrect error). [ghstack-poisoned]
@pytorchbot merge this |
…tensor2.ndim == 2 (#75195) Summary: This should hopefully be faster, it makes the calling code simpler, and it solves a bug when using matmul with the out= parameter (before it would throw an incorrect error). Pull Request resolved: #75195 Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang Test Plan: contbuild & OSS CI, see https://hud.pytorch.org/commit/pytorch/pytorch/4baf7c0899a2fa9c3630613f37d5fc65971db21c Reviewed By: malfet Differential Revision: D36171145 fbshipit-source-id: f6054f25940e6a8ad9de0e7576def098b15e9c3f
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Why is this a partial revert? - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail on a complete revert - the profiler tests fail on the revert (so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests) Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed [ghstack-poisoned]
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Why is this a partial revert? - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail on a complete revert - the profiler tests fail on the revert (so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests) Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed ghstack-source-id: 1332851f306c1354c705b0d1dfaa8a573233d024 Pull Request resolved: #82504
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed [ghstack-poisoned]
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed [ghstack-poisoned]
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed [ghstack-poisoned]
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed [ghstack-poisoned]
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed ghstack-source-id: ff73cb6ce253afc336f7090a51450f69955cd81c Pull Request resolved: #82504
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed [ghstack-poisoned]
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed ghstack-source-id: f127f9be33ba35ceeabbc6a9a4d8c24654defad7 Pull Request resolved: #82504
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed [ghstack-poisoned]
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed [ghstack-poisoned]
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed [ghstack-poisoned]
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed ghstack-source-id: ea72d0f01b28fa298535233e818ca62180f1c3f5 Pull Request resolved: #82504
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed Pull Request resolved: #82504 Approved by: https://github.com/ngimel, https://github.com/ezyang, https://github.com/atalman
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed Pull Request resolved: #82504 Approved by: https://github.com/ngimel, https://github.com/ezyang, https://github.com/atalman
This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Test Plan: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed Pull Request resolved: #82504 Approved by: https://github.com/ngimel, https://github.com/ezyang, https://github.com/atalman
Summary: This is a short-term fix for a serious regression in functorch (pytorch/functorch#989). Additional things this PR does: - the out= tests for nn.functional.linear fail after the revert. I added some xfails. These xfails were present in the original PR (#75195). - the profiler tests fail on the revert, so I updated the expecttests for the profiler tests Pull Request resolved: #82504 Approved by: https://github.com/ngimel, https://github.com/ezyang, https://github.com/atalman Test Plan: contbuild & OSS CI, see https://hud.pytorch.org/commit/pytorch/pytorch/8f86e361918e3c8a0ee2b569be6c82dfbf32d705 Test plan from GitHub: - test offline that the functorch regression was fixed Reviewed By: kit1980 Differential Revision: D38394573 Pulled By: zou3519 fbshipit-source-id: f9185d9cb447fb439d8e402712f2f2617f73b8cc
Stack from ghstack:
This should hopefully be faster, it makes the calling code simpler, and
it solves a bug when using matmul with the out= parameter (before it
would throw an incorrect error).