[fix] max_pool1d: composite compliance #70900
Closed
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
CI Flow Status⚛️ CI FlowRuleset - Version:
You can add a comment to the PR and tag @pytorchbot with the following commands: # ciflow rerun, "ciflow/default" will always be added automatically
@pytorchbot ciflow rerun
# ciflow rerun with additional labels "-l <ciflow/label_name>", which is equivalent to adding these labels manually and trigger the rerun
@pytorchbot ciflow rerun -l ciflow/scheduled -l ciflow/slowFor more information, please take a look at the CI Flow Wiki. |
Contributor
🔗 Helpful links
💊 CI failures summary and remediationsAs of commit 79ce393 (more details on the Dr. CI page):
🕵️ 1 new failure recognized by patternsThe following CI failures do not appear to be due to upstream breakages:
|
ngimel
added
the
triaged
krshrimali
reviewed
Jan 7, 2022
aten/src/ATen/native/MaxPooling.cpp
Outdated
| #include <ATen/native/DispatchStub.h> | ||
| #include <ATen/native/MaxPooling.h> | ||
| #include <ATen/native/Pool.h> | ||
| #include <iostream> |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: probably we don't need it, (might have lost after debugging locally).
zou3519
reviewed
Jan 10, 2022
zou3519
reviewed
Jan 11, 2022
Comment on lines
+101
to
+102
|
|
||
| Tensor result = [&]() { |
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Motivation for special kernel on CPU.
PR #43745 description has the relevant benchmark.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for finding it. It seems fine to me that we are turning this into an operator
zou3519
reviewed
Jan 11, 2022
aten/src/ATen/native/MaxPooling.cpp
Outdated
|
|
||
| Tensor result = [&]() { | ||
| NoNamesGuard guard; | ||
| return at::_max_pool1d_forward( |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"_max_pool1d_forward_cpu_special" or something to make it clearer that it's a special case
zou3519
reviewed
Jan 12, 2022
Contributor
zou3519
left a comment
zou3519
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This LGTM -- as discussed offline we should change the naming of the new operator to make it clearer that it's on CPU and an optimization. I also had a suggestion for the dispatch string in native_functions
Comment on lines
2945
to
2946
| dispatch: | ||
| CompositeExplicitAutograd: _max_pool1d_forward |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because this is CPU-only, can we do "dispatch: -cpu: _max_pool1d_forward"?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have updated the dispatch to CPU-only and also updated the name to _max_pool1d_cpu_forward.
Comment on lines
+101
to
+102
|
|
||
| Tensor result = [&]() { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for finding it. It seems fine to me that we are turning this into an operator
zou3519
approved these changes
Jan 14, 2022
Contributor
|
@zou3519 has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
zou3519
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2022
This reverts commit b7222e1. We are conservatively reverting this because it broke a test in functorch. The original PR added a `_max_pool1d_cpu` operator. I'm not sure if it is actually safe to revert this due to the addition of the new operator (someone may have serialized it between now and then) but because it has only been two weeks this should be fine. Test Plan: - wait for tests [ghstack-poisoned]
zou3519
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2022
This reverts commit b7222e1. We are conservatively reverting this because it broke a test in functorch. The original PR added a `_max_pool1d_cpu` operator. I'm not sure if it is actually safe to revert this due to the addition of the new operator (someone may have serialized it between now and then) but because it has only been two weeks this should be fine. Test Plan: - wait for tests ghstack-source-id: 041c985 Pull Request resolved: #71992
zou3519
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
…ance (#70900)"" This reverts commit b7222e1. We are conservatively reverting this because it broke a test in functorch. The original PR added a `_max_pool1d_cpu` operator. I'm not sure if it is actually safe to revert this due to the addition of the new operator (someone may have serialized it between now and then) but because it has only been two weeks this should be fine. Test Plan: - wait for tests [ghstack-poisoned]
zou3519
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
This reverts commit b7222e1. We are conservatively reverting this because it broke a test in functorch. The original PR added a `_max_pool1d_cpu` operator. I'm not sure if it is actually safe to revert this due to the addition of the new operator (someone may have serialized it between now and then) but because it has only been two weeks this should be fine. Test Plan: - wait for tests ghstack-source-id: e65ed77 Pull Request resolved: #71992
zou3519
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
This reverts commit b7222e1. We are conservatively reverting this because it broke a test in functorch. The original PR added a `_max_pool1d_cpu` operator. I'm not sure if it is actually safe to revert this due to the addition of the new operator (someone may have serialized it between now and then) but because it has only been two weeks this should be fine. Test Plan: - wait for tests [ghstack-poisoned]
zou3519
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
…ance (#70900)"" This reverts commit b7222e1. We are conservatively reverting this because it broke a test in functorch. The original PR added a `_max_pool1d_cpu` operator. I'm not sure if it is actually safe to revert this due to the addition of the new operator (someone may have serialized it between now and then) but because it has only been two weeks this should be fine. Test Plan: - wait for tests Differential Revision: [D33882918](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D33882918) [ghstack-poisoned]
zou3519
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
This reverts commit b7222e1. We are conservatively reverting this because it broke a test in functorch. The original PR added a `_max_pool1d_cpu` operator. I'm not sure if it is actually safe to revert this due to the addition of the new operator (someone may have serialized it between now and then) but because it has only been two weeks this should be fine. Test Plan: - wait for tests Differential Revision: [D33882918](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D33882918) [ghstack-poisoned]
zou3519
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2022
This reverts commit b7222e1. We are conservatively reverting this because it broke a test in functorch. The original PR added a `_max_pool1d_cpu` operator. I'm not sure if it is actually safe to revert this due to the addition of the new operator (someone may have serialized it between now and then) but because it has only been two weeks this should be fine. Test Plan: - wait for tests ghstack-source-id: 40a34bb Pull Request resolved: #71992
facebook-github-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 1, 2022
Summary: Pull Request resolved: #71992 This reverts commit b7222e1. We are conservatively reverting this because it broke a test in functorch. The original PR added a `_max_pool1d_cpu` operator. I'm not sure if it is actually safe to revert this due to the addition of the new operator (someone may have serialized it between now and then) but because it has only been two weeks this should be fine. Test Plan: - wait for tests Reviewed By: jbschlosser, VitalyFedyunin Differential Revision: D33882918 Pulled By: zou3519 fbshipit-source-id: f146e82e6b46690376b3d8825dc7f7da62e2c7de
pytorchmergebot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 1, 2022
Summary: Pull Request resolved: #71992 This reverts commit b7222e1. We are conservatively reverting this because it broke a test in functorch. The original PR added a `_max_pool1d_cpu` operator. I'm not sure if it is actually safe to revert this due to the addition of the new operator (someone may have serialized it between now and then) but because it has only been two weeks this should be fine. Test Plan: - wait for tests Reviewed By: jbschlosser, VitalyFedyunin Differential Revision: D33882918 Pulled By: zou3519 fbshipit-source-id: f146e82e6b46690376b3d8825dc7f7da62e2c7de (cherry picked from commit 1606333)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 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.
Reference: #69991
Not sure if this is a good idea as this increases the number of operators.