-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.7k
[PyTorch] AOTI: cache dtypes and device types at DSO load #111820
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
Conversation
Calling the `aoti_torch_{device_type,dtype}` functions on
each iteration can impose high costs on overhead-bound CPU models
because they can't be inlined across a DSO boundary. If we call them
on load, we can use simple load instructions at run time.
Differential Revision: [D50563682](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D50563682/)
[ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/111820
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ✅ You can merge normally! (1 Unrelated Failure)As of commit 252d891 with merge base e9422b1 ( BROKEN TRUNK - The following job failed but were present on the merge base:👉 Rebase onto the `viable/strict` branch to avoid these failures
This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
Calling the `aoti_torch_{device_type,dtype}` functions on
each iteration can impose high costs on overhead-bound CPU models
because they can't be inlined across a DSO boundary. If we call them
on load, we can use simple load instructions at run time.
Differential Revision: [D50563682](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D50563682/)
ghstack-source-id: 204997329
Pull Request resolved: #111820
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!
|
@pytorchbot merge |
Merge failedReason: This PR needs a If not, please add the To add a label, you can comment to pytorchbot, for example For more information, see Details for Dev Infra teamRaised by workflow job |
|
@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 |
…1820) Calling the `aoti_torch_{device_type,dtype}` functions on each iteration can impose high costs on overhead-bound CPU models because they can't be inlined across a DSO boundary. If we call them on load, we can use simple load instructions at run time. Differential Revision: [D50563682](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D50563682/) Pull Request resolved: pytorch#111820 Approved by: https://github.com/chenyang78, https://github.com/desertfire ghstack dependencies: pytorch#111815, pytorch#111816
…1820) Calling the `aoti_torch_{device_type,dtype}` functions on each iteration can impose high costs on overhead-bound CPU models because they can't be inlined across a DSO boundary. If we call them on load, we can use simple load instructions at run time. Differential Revision: [D50563682](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D50563682/) Pull Request resolved: pytorch#111820 Approved by: https://github.com/chenyang78, https://github.com/desertfire ghstack dependencies: pytorch#111815, pytorch#111816
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
Calling the
aoti_torch_{device_type,dtype}functions oneach iteration can impose high costs on overhead-bound CPU models
because they can't be inlined across a DSO boundary. If we call them
on load, we can use simple load instructions at run time.
Differential Revision: D50563682
cc @voznesenskym @penguinwu @EikanWang @jgong5 @Guobing-Chen @XiaobingSuper @zhuhaozhe @blzheng @wenzhe-nrv @jiayisunx @peterbell10 @ipiszy @yf225 @chenyang78 @kadeng @muchulee8 @aakhundov @ColinPeppler