Fixes#129403
Create a separate printing function to debug SymNode, since we can't easily change `__repr__` that is used by GraphModule.recompile() to create a pythonic version of a graph
This is my first contribution, please let me know if there is anything that I should look into in further details
Thank you for you guidance! 🙏 I hope to contribute more in the future!
@aorenste
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/129925
Approved by: https://github.com/aorenste
At a high level, the idea behind this PR is:
* Make it clearer what the promotion and int/float rules for various Sympy operations are. Operators that previously were polymorphic over int/float are now split into separate operators for clarity. We never do mixed int/float addition/multiplication etc in sympy, instead, we always promote to the appropriate operator. (However, equality is currently not done correctly.)
* Enforce strict typing on ValueRanges: if you have a ValueRange for a float, the lower and upper MUST be floats, and so forth for integers.
The story begins in **torch/utils/_sympy/functions.py**. Here, I make some changes to how we represent certain operations in sympy expressions:
* FloorDiv now only supports integer inputs; to do float floor division, do a truediv and then a trunc. Additionally, we remove the divide out addition by gcd optimization, because sympy gcd is over fields and is willing to generate rationals (but rationals are bad for ValueRange strict typing).
* ModularIndexing, LShift, RShift now assert they are given integer inputs.
* Mod only supports integer inputs; eventually we will support FloatMod (left for later work, when we build out Sympy support for floating operations). Unfortunately, I couldn't assert integer inputs here, because of a bad interaction with sympy's inequality solver that is used by the offline solver
* TrueDiv is split into FloatTrueDiv and IntTrueDiv. This allows for us to eventually generate accurate code for Python semantics IntTrueDiv, which is written in a special way to preserve precision when the inputs are >= 2**53 beyond what first coercing the integer to floats and then doing true division.
* Trunc is split to TruncToFloat and TruncToInt.
* Round is updated to return a float, not an int, making it consistent with the round op handler in Inductor. To get Python-style conversion to int, we call TruncToInt on the result.
* RoundDecimal updated to consistently only ever return a float
* Add ToFloat for explicit coercion to float (required so we can enforce strict ValueRanges typing)
In **torch/__init__.py**, we modify SymInt and SymFloat to appropriately call into new bindings that route to these refined sympy operations. Also, we modify `torch.sym_min` and `torch.sym_max` to have promotion semantics (if one argument is a float, the return result is always a float), making them inconsistent with builtins.min/max, but possible to do type analysis without runtime information.
We also need to introduce some new op handlers in **torch/_inductor/ops_handler.py**:
* `to_int` for truncation to int64, directly corresponding to TruncToInt; this can be implemented by trunc and dtype, but with a dedicated handler it is more convenient for roundtripping in Sympy
* `int_truediv` for Python-style integer true division, which has higher precision than casting to floats and then running `truediv`
These changes have consequences. First, we need to make some administrative changes:
* Actually wire up these Sympy functions from SymInt/SymFloat in **torch/fx/experimental/sym_node.py**, including the new promotion rules (promote2)
* Add support for new Sympy functions in **torch/utils/_sympy/interp.py**, **torch/utils/_sympy/reference.py**
* In particular, in torch.utils._sympy.reference, we have a strong preference to NOT do nontrivial compute, instead, everything in ops handler should map to a singular sympy function
* TODO: I chose to roundtrip mod back to our Mod function, but I think I'm going to have to deal with the C/Python inconsistency this to fix tests here
* Add printer support for the Sympy functions in **torch/_inductor/codegen/common.py**, **torch/_inductor/codegen/cpp_utils.py**, **torch/_inductor/codegen/triton.py**. `int_truediv` and mixed precision equality is currently not implemented soundly, so we will lose precision in codegen for large values. TODO: The additions here are not exhaustive yet
* Update ValueRanges logic to use new sympy functions in **torch/utils/_sympy/value_ranges.py**. In general, we prefer to use the new Sympy function rather than try to roll things by hand, which is what was done previously for many VR analysis functions.
In **torch/fx/experimental/symbolic_shapes.py** we need to make some symbolic reasoning adjustments:
* Avoid generation of rational subexpressions by removing simplification of `x // y` into `floor(x / y)`. This simplification then triggers an addition simplification rule `(x + y) / c --> x / c + y / c` which is bad because x / c is a rational number now
* `_assert_bound_is_rational` is no more, we no longer generate rational bounds
* Don't intersect non-int value ranges with the `int_range`
* Support more sympy Functions for guard SYMPY_INTERP
* Assert the type of value range is consistent with the variable type
The new asserts uncovered necessary bug fixes:
* **torch/_inductor/codegen/cpp.py**, **torch/_inductor/select_algorithm.py**, **torch/_inductor/sizevars.py** - Ensure Wild/Symbol manually allocated in Inductor is marked `is_integer` so it's accepted to build expressions
* **torch/_inductor/utils.py** - make sure you actually pass in sympy.Expr to these functions
* **torch/_inductor/ir.py** - make_contiguous_strides_for takes int/SymInt, not sympy.Expr!
* **torch/export/dynamic_shapes.py** - don't use infinity to represent int ranges, instead use sys.maxsize - 1
Because of the removal of some symbolic reasoning that produced rationals, some of our symbolic reasoning has gotten worse and we are unable to simplify some guards. Check the TODO at **test/test_proxy_tensor.py**
**Reland notes.** This requires this internal fbcode diff https://www.internalfb.com/phabricator/paste/view/P1403322587 but I cannot prepare the diff codev due to https://fb.workplace.com/groups/osssupport/posts/26343544518600814/
It also requires this Executorch PR https://github.com/pytorch/executorch/pull/3911 but the ET PR can be landed prior to this landing.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/126905
Approved by: https://github.com/xadupre, https://github.com/lezcano
At a high level, the idea behind this PR is:
* Make it clearer what the promotion and int/float rules for various Sympy operations are. Operators that previously were polymorphic over int/float are now split into separate operators for clarity. We never do mixed int/float addition/multiplication etc in sympy, instead, we always promote to the appropriate operator. (However, equality is currently not done correctly.)
* Enforce strict typing on ValueRanges: if you have a ValueRange for a float, the lower and upper MUST be floats, and so forth for integers.
The story begins in **torch/utils/_sympy/functions.py**. Here, I make some changes to how we represent certain operations in sympy expressions:
* FloorDiv now only supports integer inputs; to do float floor division, do a truediv and then a trunc. Additionally, we remove the divide out addition by gcd optimization, because sympy gcd is over fields and is willing to generate rationals (but rationals are bad for ValueRange strict typing).
* ModularIndexing, LShift, RShift now assert they are given integer inputs.
* Mod only supports integer inputs; eventually we will support FloatMod (left for later work, when we build out Sympy support for floating operations). Unfortunately, I couldn't assert integer inputs here, because of a bad interaction with sympy's inequality solver that is used by the offline solver
* TrueDiv is split into FloatTrueDiv and IntTrueDiv. This allows for us to eventually generate accurate code for Python semantics IntTrueDiv, which is written in a special way to preserve precision when the inputs are >= 2**53 beyond what first coercing the integer to floats and then doing true division.
* Trunc is split to TruncToFloat and TruncToInt.
* Round is updated to return a float, not an int, making it consistent with the round op handler in Inductor. To get Python-style conversion to int, we call TruncToInt on the result.
* RoundDecimal updated to consistently only ever return a float
* Add ToFloat for explicit coercion to float (required so we can enforce strict ValueRanges typing)
In **torch/__init__.py**, we modify SymInt and SymFloat to appropriately call into new bindings that route to these refined sympy operations. Also, we modify `torch.sym_min` and `torch.sym_max` to have promotion semantics (if one argument is a float, the return result is always a float), making them inconsistent with builtins.min/max, but possible to do type analysis without runtime information.
We also need to introduce some new op handlers in **torch/_inductor/ops_handler.py**:
* `to_int` for truncation to int64, directly corresponding to TruncToInt; this can be implemented by trunc and dtype, but with a dedicated handler it is more convenient for roundtripping in Sympy
* `int_truediv` for Python-style integer true division, which has higher precision than casting to floats and then running `truediv`
These changes have consequences. First, we need to make some administrative changes:
* Actually wire up these Sympy functions from SymInt/SymFloat in **torch/fx/experimental/sym_node.py**, including the new promotion rules (promote2)
* Add support for new Sympy functions in **torch/utils/_sympy/interp.py**, **torch/utils/_sympy/reference.py**
* In particular, in torch.utils._sympy.reference, we have a strong preference to NOT do nontrivial compute, instead, everything in ops handler should map to a singular sympy function
* TODO: I chose to roundtrip mod back to our Mod function, but I think I'm going to have to deal with the C/Python inconsistency this to fix tests here
* Add printer support for the Sympy functions in **torch/_inductor/codegen/common.py**, **torch/_inductor/codegen/cpp_utils.py**, **torch/_inductor/codegen/triton.py**. `int_truediv` and mixed precision equality is currently not implemented soundly, so we will lose precision in codegen for large values. TODO: The additions here are not exhaustive yet
* Update ValueRanges logic to use new sympy functions in **torch/utils/_sympy/value_ranges.py**. In general, we prefer to use the new Sympy function rather than try to roll things by hand, which is what was done previously for many VR analysis functions.
In **torch/fx/experimental/symbolic_shapes.py** we need to make some symbolic reasoning adjustments:
* Avoid generation of rational subexpressions by removing simplification of `x // y` into `floor(x / y)`. This simplification then triggers an addition simplification rule `(x + y) / c --> x / c + y / c` which is bad because x / c is a rational number now
* `_assert_bound_is_rational` is no more, we no longer generate rational bounds
* Don't intersect non-int value ranges with the `int_range`
* Support more sympy Functions for guard SYMPY_INTERP
* Assert the type of value range is consistent with the variable type
The new asserts uncovered necessary bug fixes:
* **torch/_inductor/codegen/cpp.py**, **torch/_inductor/select_algorithm.py**, **torch/_inductor/sizevars.py** - Ensure Wild/Symbol manually allocated in Inductor is marked `is_integer` so it's accepted to build expressions
* **torch/_inductor/utils.py** - make sure you actually pass in sympy.Expr to these functions
* **torch/_inductor/ir.py** - make_contiguous_strides_for takes int/SymInt, not sympy.Expr!
* **torch/export/dynamic_shapes.py** - don't use infinity to represent int ranges, instead use sys.maxsize - 1
Because of the removal of some symbolic reasoning that produced rationals, some of our symbolic reasoning has gotten worse and we are unable to simplify some guards. Check the TODO at **test/test_proxy_tensor.py**
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/126905
Approved by: https://github.com/xadupre, https://github.com/lezcano
At a high level, the idea behind this PR is:
* Make it clearer what the promotion and int/float rules for various Sympy operations are. Operators that previously were polymorphic over int/float are now split into separate operators for clarity. We never do mixed int/float addition/multiplication etc in sympy, instead, we always promote to the appropriate operator. (However, equality is currently not done correctly.)
* Enforce strict typing on ValueRanges: if you have a ValueRange for a float, the lower and upper MUST be floats, and so forth for integers.
The story begins in **torch/utils/_sympy/functions.py**. Here, I make some changes to how we represent certain operations in sympy expressions:
* FloorDiv now only supports integer inputs; to do float floor division, do a truediv and then a trunc. Additionally, we remove the divide out addition by gcd optimization, because sympy gcd is over fields and is willing to generate rationals (but rationals are bad for ValueRange strict typing).
* ModularIndexing, LShift, RShift now assert they are given integer inputs.
* Mod only supports integer inputs; eventually we will support FloatMod (left for later work, when we build out Sympy support for floating operations). Unfortunately, I couldn't assert integer inputs here, because of a bad interaction with sympy's inequality solver that is used by the offline solver
* TrueDiv is split into FloatTrueDiv and IntTrueDiv. This allows for us to eventually generate accurate code for Python semantics IntTrueDiv, which is written in a special way to preserve precision when the inputs are >= 2**53 beyond what first coercing the integer to floats and then doing true division.
* Trunc is split to TruncToFloat and TruncToInt.
* Round is updated to return a float, not an int, making it consistent with the round op handler in Inductor. To get Python-style conversion to int, we call TruncToInt on the result.
* RoundDecimal updated to consistently only ever return a float
* Add ToFloat for explicit coercion to float (required so we can enforce strict ValueRanges typing)
In **torch/__init__.py**, we modify SymInt and SymFloat to appropriately call into new bindings that route to these refined sympy operations. Also, we modify `torch.sym_min` and `torch.sym_max` to have promotion semantics (if one argument is a float, the return result is always a float), making them inconsistent with builtins.min/max, but possible to do type analysis without runtime information.
We also need to introduce some new op handlers in **torch/_inductor/ops_handler.py**:
* `to_int` for truncation to int64, directly corresponding to TruncToInt; this can be implemented by trunc and dtype, but with a dedicated handler it is more convenient for roundtripping in Sympy
* `int_truediv` for Python-style integer true division, which has higher precision than casting to floats and then running `truediv`
These changes have consequences. First, we need to make some administrative changes:
* Actually wire up these Sympy functions from SymInt/SymFloat in **torch/fx/experimental/sym_node.py**, including the new promotion rules (promote2)
* Add support for new Sympy functions in **torch/utils/_sympy/interp.py**, **torch/utils/_sympy/reference.py**
* In particular, in torch.utils._sympy.reference, we have a strong preference to NOT do nontrivial compute, instead, everything in ops handler should map to a singular sympy function
* TODO: I chose to roundtrip mod back to our Mod function, but I think I'm going to have to deal with the C/Python inconsistency this to fix tests here
* Add printer support for the Sympy functions in **torch/_inductor/codegen/common.py**, **torch/_inductor/codegen/cpp_utils.py**, **torch/_inductor/codegen/triton.py**. `int_truediv` and mixed precision equality is currently not implemented soundly, so we will lose precision in codegen for large values. TODO: The additions here are not exhaustive yet
* Update ValueRanges logic to use new sympy functions in **torch/utils/_sympy/value_ranges.py**. In general, we prefer to use the new Sympy function rather than try to roll things by hand, which is what was done previously for many VR analysis functions.
In **torch/fx/experimental/symbolic_shapes.py** we need to make some symbolic reasoning adjustments:
* Avoid generation of rational subexpressions by removing simplification of `x // y` into `floor(x / y)`. This simplification then triggers an addition simplification rule `(x + y) / c --> x / c + y / c` which is bad because x / c is a rational number now
* `_assert_bound_is_rational` is no more, we no longer generate rational bounds
* Don't intersect non-int value ranges with the `int_range`
* Support more sympy Functions for guard SYMPY_INTERP
* Assert the type of value range is consistent with the variable type
The new asserts uncovered necessary bug fixes:
* **torch/_inductor/codegen/cpp.py**, **torch/_inductor/select_algorithm.py**, **torch/_inductor/sizevars.py** - Ensure Wild/Symbol manually allocated in Inductor is marked `is_integer` so it's accepted to build expressions
* **torch/_inductor/utils.py** - make sure you actually pass in sympy.Expr to these functions
* **torch/_inductor/ir.py** - make_contiguous_strides_for takes int/SymInt, not sympy.Expr!
* **torch/export/dynamic_shapes.py** - don't use infinity to represent int ranges, instead use sys.maxsize - 1
Because of the removal of some symbolic reasoning that produced rationals, some of our symbolic reasoning has gotten worse and we are unable to simplify some guards. Check the TODO at **test/test_proxy_tensor.py**
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/126905
Approved by: https://github.com/xadupre, https://github.com/lezcano
Fixes https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/117361
The implementation here slightly diverges from what was proposed in the issue, so I will recap what this PR is doing here. Today, when doing computations involving size-like unbacked SymInts, we assume for all operations that the compile time range of the integer is `[2, inf]`, even though at runtime we also accept zero and one.
This PR removes the carte blanche assumption, and instead does the analysis in a much more limited and controlled fashion: only for guards which we have designated as "size oblivious" are we willing to do the analysis under the assumption that the range of all size-like unbacked SymInts is `[2, inf]`; otherwise, we will faithfully only do analysis with `[0, inf]` (or whatever the user provided) bounds.
The infra pieces of this PR are:
* Remove runtime_var_to_range from torch/fx/experimental/symbolic_shapes.py; modify `_constrain_range_for_size` to refine the range without clamping min to 2, and instead add the symbol to a `size_like` set in the ShapeEnv
* When evaluating an expression, if the expression is requested to be evaluated in a `size_oblivious` way, we attempt to statically compute the value of the expression with the assumption that all symbols in `size_like` are updated to assume that they are `>= 2`.
* Add Python and C++ APIs for guarding on a SymBool in a size-oblivious way. In C++, I also need to add some helpers for performing symbolic comparisons, since the stock comparisons immediately specialize in the "normal" way.
The rest of the changes of the PR are marking various spots in PyTorch framework code as size oblivious, based on what our current test suite exercises.
As you review the places where we have marked things as size oblivious, it may become clear why I ended up not opting for the "designate a branch as the default branch when it's not statically obvious which way to go": for some of the conditions, this answer is rather non-obvious. I think potentially there is another refinement on top of this PR, which is something like "I don't care if you can't figure it out with ValueRange analysis, go down this path anyway if there are unbacked sizes involved." But even if we add this API, I think we are obligated to attempt the ValueRange analysis first, since it can lead to better outcomes sometimes (e.g., we are able to figure out that something is contiguous no matter what the unbacked size is.)
When is it permissible to mark something as size oblivious? Heuristically, it is OK anywhere in framework code if it gets you past a guard on unbacked SymInt problem. It is somewhat difficult to provide a true semantic answer, however. In particular, these annotations don't have any observational equivalence guarantee; for example, if I have `torch.empty(u0, 1).squeeze()`, we will always produce a `[u0]` size tensor, even though if `u0 == 1` PyTorch will actually produce a `[]` size tensor. The argument that I gave to Lezcano is that we are in fact defining an alternate semantics for a "special" size = 0, 1, for which we have these alternate eager mode semantics. In particular, suppose that we have a constant `special1` which semantically denotes 1, but triggers alternate handling rules. We would define `torch.empty(special1, 1).squeeze()` to always produce a `[special1]` size tensor, making its semantics coincide with unbacked SymInt semantics. In this model, the decision to designate guards as size oblivious is simply a user API question: you put them where ever you need some handling for special1! As we conservatively error out whenever it is not obvious what `special1` semantics should be, it is always valid to expand these semantics to cover more cases (although you can always choose the wrong semantics!)
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/118579
Approved by: https://github.com/eellison, https://github.com/lezcano
This PR supports sym_ite. This is useful for converting SymBool to SymInt in e.g. #109916. Internally, it uses sympy.Piecewise. We cannot use sympy.ITE because it expects the arguments and output all to be boolean type but we want return SymInt type when converting a SymBool to SymInt. So we use sympy.Piecewise to denote the symbolic relationship.
Note that this pr uses the range analysis for sympy.Piecewise implemented in https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/main/torch/utils/_sympy/value_ranges.py.
Test Plan:
See added test.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/111440
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
We want to be able to use SingletonSymNode to represent strides for Jagged layout tensor. The following is for 3D, but easily generalizable to higher dimensions.
Constraints:
- [B, x, D] (where x represents the "variably lengthed dim") can be strided in two ways [x, 1, sum(x)] and [dx, d, 1]. We need two different placeholder values depending on how the jagged tensor is strided.
- When doing operations we need the strides of output tensors to be expressable in terms of the strides and sizes of the inner tensors. Given [B, x, D] @ [D, D'], the output strides is [x * D', D', 1] rather than some opaque [x2, D', 1]. This constraint exists because if I'm tracing, I need a symint to represent the output stride. This symint needs to come from somewhere; I get it in several ways: (1) create a constant, (2) unbacked symint, (3) create a new input using a source, (4) output of an operation on an existing symint. It is clear that (4) is what we want here, which brings us to the design below.
Design:
Given the two constraints, the most straightforward way to implement this is actually to update SingletonSymNode to include some scalar factor, i.e. Morally, SingletonSymNode represents `factor * [s_0, s_1, …, s_n]` This enables us to symbolically compute strides from sizes.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/110369
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
ghstack dependencies: #110044
In this PR:
- When Constant SymNode are detected in unary/binary ops demote them to plain int/bool before proceeding. Sometimes this means doing a unary op with a Constant SymNode would result in a plain bool.
- Introduce an is_symbolic method, only available from Python. We need this because isinstance(x, SymInt) is no longer sufficient to check whether a given int/SymInt is symbolic or not. See later PR in the stack to see how this is used.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/109169
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
Adds `SingletonSymNodeImpl` (alternatively, `SkolemSymNodeImpl`). This is a int-like object that only allows the`eq` operation; any other operation produces an error.
The main complexity is that we require operations that dispatch to SymNode must take and return SymNodes, but when performing operations involving `SingletonSymNodeImpl`, operations involving SymNode can return non-SymNode bools. For more discussion see [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/18iqMdnHlUnvoTz4BveBbyWFi_tCRmFoqMFdBHKmCm_k/edit)
- Introduce `ConstantSymNodeImpl` a generalization of `LargeNegativeIntSymNodeImpl` and replace usage of `LargeNegativeIntSymNodeImpl` in SymInt.
- Also use ConstantSymNodeImpl to enable SymBool to store its data on a SymNode. Remove the assumption that if SymBool holds a non-null SymNode, it must be symbolic.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/107089
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
ghstack dependencies: #107839
Here's what it does from the comments:
```
Assume that a boolean is true for the purposes of subsequent symbolic
reasoning. This will keep track of corresponding runtime checks to verify
that the result is upheld: either as a regular guard, or as a special set
of asserts which are triggered when an unbacked SymInt is allocated.
DO NOT use this function for these cases:
- This is inappropriate for "branching" conditions (where both
true and false result in valid programs). We will always assume
the condition evaluates true, and so it will never be possible
to trace the false condition when you use it. For true branching
on unbacked SymInts, you must use torch.cond.
- This is inappropriate for situations where you know some other system
invariant guarantees that this property holds, since you don't
really need to insert a runtime check in that case. Use something
like constrain_range in that case.
This API has a hitch. To avoid having to reimplement error reporting
capabilities, this function CAN return False. The invariant is that
the surrounding code must raise an error when this function returns
False. This is quite low level, so we recommend using other functions
like check() which enforce this in a more intuitive way.
By the way, this name is a nod to the __builtin_expect likely macro,
which is used similarly (but unlike __builtin_expect, you MUST fail
in the unlikely branch.)
```
We don't do anything with this right now, except use it to discharge regular guards. Follow up PRs to (1) use it at important error checking sites, (2) actually ensure the runtime asserts make there way into the exported IR / inductor generated code.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/106720
Approved by: https://github.com/ysiraichi, https://github.com/voznesenskym
Previously, x.size(0) could return a SymInt, even when the internal
sympy expression was actually already constant (e.g., due to an
introduced guard.) We now allow to query the Python object with
maybe_as_int which allows us to transmute these objects back to
int when possible.
It is still possible to end up with a constant SymInt even after this
change, e.g., if you get out a SymInt and while holding onto it
specialize it, but casual users are more likely to get ints when they
want to.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/104828
Approved by: https://github.com/Skylion007
Previously, x.size(0) could return a SymInt, even when the internal
sympy expression was actually already constant (e.g., due to an
introduced guard.) We now allow to query the Python object with
maybe_as_int which allows us to transmute these objects back to
int when possible.
It is still possible to end up with a constant SymInt even after this
change, e.g., if you get out a SymInt and while holding onto it
specialize it, but casual users are more likely to get ints when they
want to.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/104828
Approved by: https://github.com/Skylion007
Previously, x.size(0) could return a SymInt, even when the internal
sympy expression was actually already constant (e.g., due to an
introduced guard.) We now allow to query the Python object with
maybe_as_int which allows us to transmute these objects back to
int when possible.
It is still possible to end up with a constant SymInt even after this
change, e.g., if you get out a SymInt and while holding onto it
specialize it, but casual users are more likely to get ints when they
want to.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/104828
Approved by: https://github.com/Skylion007
The strategy is that we will heap allocate a LargeNegativeIntSymNodeImpl whenever we have a large negative int, so that we can keep the old `is_symbolic` test (now called `is_heap_allocated`) on SymInt. Whenever we need to do something with these ints, though, we convert them back into a plain `int64_t` (and then, e.g., wrap it in whatever user specificed SymNodeImpl they need.) We cannot wrap directly in the user specified SymNodeImpl as we generally do not know what the "tracing context" is from C++. We expect large negative ints to be rare, so we don't apply optimizations like singleton-ifying INT_MIN. Here's the order to review:
* c10/core/SymInt.h and cpp
* `is_symbolic` renamed to `is_heap_allocated` as I needed to audit all use sites: the old `is_symbolic` test would return true for large negative int, but it would be wrong to then try to dispatch on the LargeNegativeIntSymNodeImpl which supports very few operations. In this file, I had to update expect_int,
* If you pass in a large negative integer, we instead heap allocate it in `promote_to_negative`. The function is written in a funny way to keep compact constructor code for SymInt (the heap allocation happens out of line)
* clone is now moved out-of-line
* New method maybe_as_int which will give you a constant int if it is possible, either because it's stored inline or in LargeNegativeIntSymNodeImpl. This is the preferred replacement for previous use of is_symbolic() and then as_int_unchecked().
* Rename toSymNodeImpl to toSymNode, which is more correct (since it returns a SymNode)
* Complete rewrite of `normalize_symints.cpp` to use new `maybe_as_int`. Cannot easily use the old code structure, so it's now done doing a macro and typing out each case manually (it's actually not that bad.)
* Reimplementations of all the unary operators by hand to use `maybe_as_int`, relatively simple.
* c10/core/LargeNegativeIntSymNodeImpl.h - Just stores a int64_t value, but it has to be big and negative. Most methods are not implemented, since we will rewrap the large negative int in the real SymNodeImpl subclass before doing operations with it
* The rest of the files are just rewriting code to use `maybe_as_int`. There is a nontrivial comment in c10/core/SymIntArrayRef.h
Very minor test adjustment in c10/test/core/SymInt_test.cpp . Plan to exercise this properly in next PR.
Companion XLA PR: https://github.com/pytorch/xla/pull/4882
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/99157
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD
The basic idea behind this PR is that we want to continue using the guarding implementations of contiguity tests, if all of the elements are backend (aka, have hints). If they don't have hints, we'll have to do something slower (use the non-short circuiting, non guarding implementations of contiguity), but most of the time you aren't dealing with unbacked SymInts.
So this PR has three parts.
1. We expose `has_hint` on `SymNode`. This allows us to query whether or not a SymInt is backed or not from C++. Fairly self explanatory. Will require LTC/XLA updates; but for backends that don't support unbacked SymInts you can just always return true.
2. We update `compute_non_overlapping_and_dense` to test if the inputs are hinted. If they are all hinted, we use the conventional C++ implementation. Otherwise we call into Python. The Python case is not heavily tested right now because I haven't gotten all of the pieces for unbacked SymInts working yet. Coming soon.
3. We add stubs for all of the other contiguity tests. The intention is to apply the same treatment to them as well, but this is not wired up yet for safety reasons.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/94431
Approved by: https://github.com/voznesenskym
We have known for a while that we should in principle support SymBool as a separate concept from SymInt and SymFloat ( in particular, every distinct numeric type should get its own API). However, recent work with unbacked SymInts in, e.g., https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/90985 have made this a priority to implement. The essential problem is that our logic for computing the contiguity of tensors performs branches on the passed in input sizes, and this causes us to require guards when constructing tensors from unbacked SymInts. Morally, this should not be a big deal because, we only really care about the regular (non-channels-last) contiguity of the tensor, which should be guaranteed since most people aren't calling `empty_strided` on the tensor, however, because we store a bool (not a SymBool, prior to this PR it doesn't exist) on TensorImpl, we are forced to *immediately* compute these values, even if the value ends up not being used at all. In particular, even when a user allocates a contiguous tensor, we still must compute channels-last contiguity (as some contiguous tensors are also channels-last contiguous, but others are not.)
This PR implements SymBool, and makes TensorImpl use SymBool to store the contiguity information in ExtraMeta. There are a number of knock on effects, which I now discuss below.
* I introduce a new C++ type SymBool, analogous to SymInt and SymFloat. This type supports logical and, logical or and logical negation. I support the bitwise operations on this class (but not the conventional logic operators) to make it clear that logical operations on SymBool are NOT short-circuiting. I also, for now, do NOT support implicit conversion of SymBool to bool (creating a guard in this case). This does matter too much in practice, as in this PR I did not modify the equality operations (e.g., `==` on SymInt) to return SymBool, so all preexisting implicit guards did not need to be changed. I also introduced symbolic comparison functions `sym_eq`, etc. on SymInt to make it possible to create SymBool. The current implementation of comparison functions makes it unfortunately easy to accidentally introduce guards when you do not mean to (as both `s0 == s1` and `s0.sym_eq(s1)` are valid spellings of equality operation); in the short term, I intend to prevent excess guarding in this situation by unit testing; in the long term making the equality operators return SymBool is probably the correct fix.
* ~~I modify TensorImpl to store SymBool for the `is_contiguous` fields and friends on `ExtraMeta`. In practice, this essentially meant reverting most of the changes from https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/85936 . In particular, the fields on ExtraMeta are no longer strongly typed; at the time I was particularly concerned about the giant lambda I was using as the setter getting a desynchronized argument order, but now that I have individual setters for each field the only "big list" of boolean arguments is in the constructor of ExtraMeta, which seems like an acceptable risk. The semantics of TensorImpl are now that we guard only when you actually attempt to access the contiguity of the tensor via, e.g., `is_contiguous`. By in large, the contiguity calculation in the implementations now needs to be duplicated (as the boolean version can short circuit, but the SymBool version cannot); you should carefully review the duplicate new implementations. I typically use the `identity` template to disambiguate which version of the function I need, and rely on overloading to allow for implementation sharing. The changes to the `compute_` functions are particularly interesting; for most of the functions, I preserved their original non-symbolic implementation, and then introduce a new symbolic implementation that is branch-less (making use of our new SymBool operations). However, `compute_non_overlapping_and_dense` is special, see next bullet.~~ This appears to cause performance problems, so I am leaving this to an update PR.
* (Update: the Python side pieces for this are still in this PR, but they are not wired up until later PRs.) While the contiguity calculations are relatively easy to write in a branch-free way, `compute_non_overlapping_and_dense` is not: it involves a sort on the strides. While in principle we can still make it go through by using a data oblivious sorting network, this seems like too much complication for a field that is likely never used (because typically, it will be obvious that a tensor is non overlapping and dense, because the tensor is contiguous.) So we take a different approach: instead of trying to trace through the logic computation of non-overlapping and dense, we instead introduce a new opaque operator IsNonOverlappingAndDenseIndicator which represents all of the compute that would have been done here. This function returns an integer 0 if `is_non_overlapping_and_dense` would have returned `False`, and an integer 1 otherwise, for technical reasons (Sympy does not easily allow defining custom functions that return booleans). The function itself only knows how to evaluate itself if all of its arguments are integers; otherwise it is left unevaluated. This means we can always guard on it (as `size_hint` will always be able to evaluate through it), but otherwise its insides are left a black box. We typically do NOT expect this custom function to show up in actual boolean expressions, because we will typically shortcut it due to the tensor being contiguous. It's possible we should apply this treatment to all of the other `compute_` operations, more investigation necessary. As a technical note, because this operator takes a pair of a list of SymInts, we need to support converting `ArrayRef<SymNode>` to Python, and I also unpack the pair of lists into a single list because I don't know if Sympy operations can actually validly take lists of Sympy expressions as inputs. See for example `_make_node_sizes_strides`
* On the Python side, we also introduce a SymBool class, and update SymNode to track bool as a valid pytype. There is some subtlety here: bool is a subclass of int, so one has to be careful about `isinstance` checks (in fact, in most cases I replaced `isinstance(x, int)` with `type(x) is int` for expressly this reason.) Additionally, unlike, C++, I do NOT define bitwise inverse on SymBool, because it does not do the correct thing when run on booleans, e.g., `~True` is `-2`. (For that matter, they don't do the right thing in C++ either, but at least in principle the compiler can warn you about it with `-Wbool-operation`, and so the rule is simple in C++; only use logical operations if the types are statically known to be SymBool). Alas, logical negation is not overrideable, so we have to introduce `sym_not` which must be used in place of `not` whenever a SymBool can turn up. To avoid confusion with `__not__` which may imply that `operators.__not__` might be acceptable to use (it isn't), our magic method is called `__sym_not__`. The other bitwise operators `&` and `|` do the right thing with booleans and are acceptable to use.
* There is some annoyance working with booleans in Sympy. Unlike int and float, booleans live in their own algebra and they support less operations than regular numbers. In particular, `sympy.expand` does not work on them. To get around this, I introduce `safe_expand` which only calls expand on operations which are known to be expandable.
TODO: this PR appears to greatly regress performance of symbolic reasoning. In particular, `python test/functorch/test_aotdispatch.py -k max_pool2d` performs really poorly with these changes. Need to investigate.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/92149
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD, https://github.com/Skylion007
It turns out our old max/min implementation didn't do anything, because `__max__` and `__min__` are not actually magic methods in Python. So I give 'em the `sym_` treatment, similar to the other non-overrideable builtins.
NB: I would like to use `sym_max` when computing contiguous strides but this appears to make `python test/functorch/test_aotdispatch.py -v -k test_aot_autograd_symbolic_exhaustive_nn_functional_max_pool2d_cpu_float32` run extremely slowly. Needs investigating.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/92107
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD, https://github.com/voznesenskym, https://github.com/Skylion007
Noticed the toSymFloat / toSymInt overloads always copied the internal pointer of an ivalue even if it was an rvalue unlike other overloads (like toTensor). This fixes that issue by adding the appropriate methods needed to facilitate that.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/91405
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
This refactor was prompted by challenges handling mixed int/float
operations in C++. A previous version of this patch
added overloads for each permutation of int/float and was unwieldy
https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/87722/ This PR takes a different
approach.
The general outline of the patch is to combine the C++ types SymIntNode
and SymFloatNode into a single type, SymNode. This is type erased; we
no longer know statically at C++ if we have an int/float and have to test
it with the is_int()/is_float() virtual methods. This has a number of
knock on effects.
- We no longer have C++ classes to bind to Python. Instead, we take an
entirely new approach to our Python API, where we have a SymInt/SymFloat
class defined entirely in Python, which hold a SymNode (which corresponds
to the C++ SymNode). However, SymNode is not pybind11-bound; instead,
it lives as-is in Python, and is wrapped into C++ SymNode using PythonSymNode
when it goes into C++. This implies a userland rename.
In principle, it is also possible for the canonical implementation of SymNode
to be written in C++, and then bound to Python with pybind11 (we have
this code, although it is commented out.) However, I did not implement
this as we currently have no C++ implementations of SymNode.
Because we do return SymInt/SymFloat from C++ bindings, the C++ binding
code needs to know how to find these classes. Currently, this is done
just by manually importing torch and getting the attributes.
- Because SymInt/SymFloat are easy Python wrappers, __sym_dispatch__ now
takes SymInt/SymFloat, rather than SymNode, bringing it in line with how
__torch_dispatch__ works.
Some miscellaneous improvements:
- SymInt now has a constructor that takes SymNode. Note that this
constructor is ambiguous if you pass in a subclass of SymNode,
so an explicit downcast is necessary. This means toSymFloat/toSymInt
are no more. This is a mild optimization as it means rvalue reference
works automatically.
- We uniformly use the caster for c10::SymInt/SymFloat, rather than
going the long way via the SymIntNode/SymFloatNode.
- Removed some unnecessary toSymInt/toSymFloat calls in normalize_*
functions, pretty sure this doesn't do anything.
- guard_int is now a free function, since to guard on an int you cannot
assume the method exists. A function can handle both int and SymInt
inputs.
- We clean up the magic method definition code for SymInt/SymFloat/SymNode.
ONLY the user classes (SymInt/SymFloat) get magic methods; SymNode gets
plain methods; this is to help avoid confusion between the two types.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
cc @jansel @mlazos @soumith @voznesenskym @yanboliang @penguinwu @anijain2305
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/87817
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD, https://github.com/anjali411
