-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.7k
Add batch decomposition for torch.unsafe_chunk #110862
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
Add batch decomposition for torch.unsafe_chunk #110862
Conversation
[ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/110862
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ✅ No FailuresAs of commit 3068b1d with merge base f77b9bf ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
| OpInfo('unsafe_chunk', | ||
| dtypes=all_types_and_complex_and(torch.bool, torch.bfloat16, torch.float16, torch.chalf), | ||
| sample_inputs_func=sample_inputs_chunk, | ||
| check_batched_forward_grad=False, |
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.
gradcheck uses legacy vmap implementation for batched forward and unsafe_chunk uses unsafe_split which doesn't have a batching rule for legacy vmap. (unsafe_split OpInfo also sets this to False)
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.
LGTM! Thanks @guilhermeleobas
cc: @zou3519 for binding approval.
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.
Please remove the mention from the docs, otherwise, this LGTM
This updates the docs as well to show `torch.unsafe_chunk`. Should the `unsafe_*` functions should not appear in the docs? [ghstack-poisoned]
|
@pytorchbot merge |
Merge failedReason: 1 mandatory check(s) failed. The first few are: Dig deeper by viewing the failures on hud |
|
@pytorchbot merge |
Merge failedReason: 1 mandatory check(s) failed. The first few are: Dig deeper by viewing the failures on hud |
|
@pytorchbot merge |
Merge failedReason: 1 mandatory check(s) failed. The first few are: Dig deeper by viewing the failures on hud |
This updates the docs as well to show `torch.unsafe_chunk`. Should the `unsafe_*` functions should not appear in the docs? [ghstack-poisoned]
This updates the docs as well to show `torch.unsafe_chunk`. Should the `unsafe_*` functions should not appear in the docs? [ghstack-poisoned]
|
@pytorchbot merge |
Merge startedYour 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 |
This updates the docs as well to show `torch.unsafe_chunk`. Should the `unsafe_*` functions should not appear in the docs? Pull Request resolved: pytorch#110862 Approved by: https://github.com/kshitij12345, https://github.com/zou3519
This updates the docs as well to show `torch.unsafe_chunk`. Should the `unsafe_*` functions should not appear in the docs? Pull Request resolved: pytorch#110862 Approved by: https://github.com/kshitij12345, https://github.com/zou3519
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
This updates the docs as well to show
torch.unsafe_chunk. Should theunsafe_*functions should not appear in the docs?