[TorchScript] ProfilingExecutor - RemoveProfileNodesAndSpecializeTypes None handling #161538
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…s None handling [ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/161538
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ❗ 1 Active SEVsThere are 1 currently active SEVs. If your PR is affected, please view them below: ✅ No FailuresAs of commit 317eb98 with merge base a72803f ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
facebook-github-bot
added
the
oncall: jit
|
@davidberard98 has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
|
@pytorchbot merge (Initiating merge automatically since Phabricator Diff has merged) |
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 |
markc-614
pushed a commit
to markc-614/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 17, 2025
…s None handling (pytorch#161538) ProfilingGraphExecutor works like this: 1. do some unrelated JIT optimizations 2. Add profiling nodes to collect JIT information like tensor dtypes and shapes 3. Do some more unrelated JIT optimizations 4. Remove the profiling nodes and extract the tensor info, and then use the JIT tensor info to do optimizations. This PR is intended to fix a bug in Step 4, where the profiling nodes were removed. It was previously assumed that all the things that were profiled were either Tensors or Optional[Tensor]s - otherwise, step 2 would not have introduced a profiling node. However, we saw a case where step 3 would remove replace Optional[Tensor] inputs with `None` inputs (e.g. if a conditional that returned a Tensor or a None could be statically known to only follow the `None` branch). To fix this, we essentially just modify the RemoveProfileNodesAndSpecializeTypes assert so that it accepts Tensors, Optional[Tensor]s, or None (the new part). Note that this issue is probably somewhat uncommon (maybe why we didn't see it for the first 4 years that this code existed). I expect that, typically, any time that step 3 would convert `Optional[Tensor] -> None`, step 1 would have already done that. So it's difficult to reproduce in an end-to-end TorchScript workload. Differential Revision: [D81068172](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D81068172) Pull Request resolved: pytorch#161538 Approved by: https://github.com/nmacchioni
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
ProfilingGraphExecutor works like this:
This PR is intended to fix a bug in Step 4, where the profiling nodes were removed. It was previously assumed that all the things that were profiled were either Tensors or Optional[Tensor]s - otherwise, step 2 would not have introduced a profiling node.
However, we saw a case where step 3 would remove replace Optional[Tensor] inputs with
Noneinputs (e.g. if a conditional that returned a Tensor or a None could be statically known to only follow theNonebranch).To fix this, we essentially just modify the RemoveProfileNodesAndSpecializeTypes assert so that it accepts Tensors, Optional[Tensor]s, or None (the new part).
Note that this issue is probably somewhat uncommon (maybe why we didn't see it for the first 4 years that this code existed). I expect that, typically, any time that step 3 would convert
Optional[Tensor] -> None, step 1 would have already done that. So it's difficult to reproduce in an end-to-end TorchScript workload.cc @EikanWang @jgong5 @wenzhe-nrv @sanchitintel
Differential Revision: D81068172