We basically follow the same pattern we do for tensor arguments. The major downside is we now have to traverse the entirety of the int list / etc where previously we didn't have. Benchmark suggests 2% regression for relevant things.
Signed-off-by: Edward Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/160256
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD
This word appears often in class descriptions and is not consistently spelled. Update comments and some function names to use the correct spelling consistently. Facilitates searching the codebase.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/155944
Approved by: https://github.com/Skylion007
Tested internally here: https://www.internalfb.com/diff/D64057744
This is a reland after previous internal failures.
main change is
```
if min is None and max is None:
torch._check_is_size(size)
return
```
Partially addresses https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/128150
When you have big sums of values, we end up computing long chains of
binary addition in our FX graph representation. Not only is this ugly,
it also is quadratic, as the sympy.Add constructor is O(N) in number
of arguments. Instead, ensure that we maintain the summation as a
single FX node so we can do the entire addition all in one go.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/138660
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang, https://github.com/bobrenjc93
Partially addresses https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/128150
When you have big sums of values, we end up computing long chains of
binary addition in our FX graph representation. Not only is this ugly,
it also is quadratic, as the sympy.Add constructor is O(N) in number
of arguments. Instead, ensure that we maintain the summation as a
single FX node so we can do the entire addition all in one go.
update_hint_regression benchmark, before and after:
```
update_hint_regression,compile_time_instruction_count,2648328980
update_hint_regression,compile_time_instruction_count,2563748678
```
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@meta.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/136429
Approved by: https://github.com/isuruf
This PR adds a C function to check if all torch function is disabled.
Recall that there are three torch function enablement states:
* All disabled
* Torch Function Subclass disabled
* All enabled
The API before this change provides two functions:
* `_is_torch_function_enabled` - returns True iff the current TF state is All enabled
* `_is_torch_function_mode_enabled` - returns True iff the state is not All disabled and the torch function mode stack is non-empty.
The crux of why a new API is needed is the following: If dynamo enters a frame with the torch function mode stack empty, `_is_torch_function_enabled` == False, it is impossible to determine if after a new mode is pushed whether we should enter the mode or not. This is because we don't know if the enablement state is All disabled or only subclass disabled. Adding this API to check if All disabled is True allows us to disambiguate this case.
In the next PR, Dynamo InstructionTranslator will have clearer flags than the underlying C API:
* A flag to indicate if subclasses are disabled (ie All disabled or Subclass Disabled is the current state)
* A flag to indicate if modes are disabled (ie if All disabled is the current state)
* A symbolic stack which can be checked if any modes are present
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/133136
Approved by: https://github.com/bdhirsh
ghstack dependencies: #133130, #133729, #133131, #133132, #133133, #133134
Summary:
# Problem
`TORCH_WARN` can cause massive log spam.
I output the logs for before and after adding this change.
*Before:*
* The log file size was ~61.15 MB(61148028 bytes).
*After:*
* The log filesize was ~56.44 MB(56444057) bytes.
# Context
Looks like we tried to land this change earlier but it was reverted:
* D59413413
* Reverted https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/130047 on behalf of https://github.com/clee2000 due to broke test_overrides.py::TestTorchFunctionWarning::test_warn_on_invalid_torch_function
# Testing Update
`test_warn_on_invalid_torch_function` would fail because the warning would not be called on the handling of the second torch function class since `TORCH_WARN_ONCE` stops repeats globally.
Updated so that it runs separate programs. (Was not able to actually run the test, could someone help me with that
Test Plan: Need help with this...
Differential Revision: D60561181
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/132374
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
Updates flake8 to v6.1.0 and fixes a few lints using sed and some ruff tooling.
- Replace `assert(0)` with `raise AssertionError()`
- Remove extraneous parenthesis i.e.
- `assert(a == b)` -> `assert a == b`
- `if(x > y or y < z):`->`if x > y or y < z:`
- And `return('...')` -> `return '...'`
Co-authored-by: Nikita Shulga <2453524+malfet@users.noreply.github.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/116591
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD, https://github.com/malfet
Fixes#109842.
This disables the implicit `UserWarning`s that were raised for deprecated `torch` attributes. The filtering was designed to be as specific as possible, in order to not filter any other warnings that may be raised.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/109890
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
This PR is to address the issue seeing in PR #97417 where the newly added op requires `kwargs`, however, currently tools/autograd/gen_annotated_fn_args.py does not support `kwargs`, only `func_args` are generated for test_overrides.py.
The PR adds a new field "is_kwargs" to each argument indicating whether it's a `kwargs` or not. See example:
```
annotated_args = {
torch._C._VariableFunctions._cast_Byte: [{'is_kwarg_only': 'False', 'name': 'self', 'simple_type': 'Tensor'}],
...
```
The full comparison of the generated file `annotated_fn_args.py` can be found here:
- **Before**: [P681991116](https://www.internalfb.com/phabricator/paste/view/P681991116)
- **After**: [P681994218](https://www.internalfb.com/intern/paste/P681994218/)
Differential Revision: D44698310
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/98396
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
