It generally recommended to use `is/is not` to compare types. Therefore this series of changes apply this suggestion in the code base, and it aims to finally enabling related linter checks.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/165037
Approved by: https://github.com/mlazos
[relanding again after fixing internal build]
Summary:
This might cause some new DDEs on call sites that do not use is_contiguous_or_false() or sym_is_contiguous()
but want to find those call sites to handle this properly by calling is_contiguous_or_false() and not is_contiguous() explitly when appropriate.
I had to fix one issue after removing the implicit size oblivious reasoning. here is context
we defined in this https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/157472 sym_is_contiguous to be the function computing contiguity for dynamic shapes in c++. It returns a symbolic expression that represents contiguity and guaranteed not to throw a DDE.
when people call is_contiguous we do sym_is_contiguous().guard_bool()
when people call is_contiguous_or_false we do sym_is_contiguous().guard_or_false()
one issue not handled well was this path
```
c10::SymBool TensorImpl::sym_is_contiguous_custom(
at::MemoryFormat memory_format) const {
if (C10_UNLIKELY(matches_python_custom(SizesStridesPolicy::CustomStrides))) {
return pyobj_slot_.load_pyobj_interpreter()->is_contiguous(
this, memory_format);
}
return sym_is_contiguous_default(memory_format);
}
```
namely if we call sym_is_contiguous_custom but we have matches_python_custom(SizesStridesPolicy::CustomStrides) return true , then we used to call is_contiguous(this, memory_format);
This used to go through the load_pyobj_interpreter and end up calling the python is_contiguous call which used implicit size oblivious reasoning.
once we removed that implicit size oblivious reasoning, the right thing we want is to call
return pyobj_slot_.load_pyobj_interpreter()->sym_is_contiguous(this, memory_format);
otherwise we would get DDE even if the caller is doing sym_is_contiguous.
so I had to define it for pyinterpreter, and then I had to override it for nested tensors.
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
Test Plan:
contbuild & OSS CI, see e444cd24d4
Rollback Plan:
Differential Revision: D80435179
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/160869
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
This might cause some new DDEs on call sites that do not use is_contiguous_or_false() or sym_is_contiguous()
but want to find those call sites to handle this properly by calling is_contiguous_or_false() and not is_contiguous() explitly when appropriate.
I had to fix one issue after removing the implicit size oblivious reasoning. here is context
we defined in this https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/157472 sym_is_contiguous to be the function computing contiguity for dynamic shapes in c++. It returns a symbolic expression that represents contiguity and guaranteed not to throw a DDE.
when people call is_contiguous we do sym_is_contiguous().guard_bool()
when people call is_contiguous_or_false we do sym_is_contiguous().guard_or_false()
one issue not handled well was this path
```
c10::SymBool TensorImpl::sym_is_contiguous_custom(
at::MemoryFormat memory_format) const {
if (C10_UNLIKELY(matches_python_custom(SizesStridesPolicy::CustomStrides))) {
return pyobj_slot_.load_pyobj_interpreter()->is_contiguous(
this, memory_format);
}
return sym_is_contiguous_default(memory_format);
}
```
namely if we call sym_is_contiguous_custom but we have matches_python_custom(SizesStridesPolicy::CustomStrides) return true , then we used to call is_contiguous(this, memory_format);
This used to go through the load_pyobj_interpreter and end up calling the python is_contiguous call which used implicit size oblivious reasoning.
once we removed that implicit size oblivious reasoning, the right thing we want is to call
return pyobj_slot_.load_pyobj_interpreter()->sym_is_contiguous(this, memory_format);
otherwise we would get DDE even if the caller is doing sym_is_contiguous.
so I had to define it for pyinterpreter, and then I had to override it for nested tensors.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/159197
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
Fixes#147140
## Changes
- Add `to` implementation in `MaskedTensor` to support move `mask` to target device
## Test Result
```python
In [1]: import torch
...: from torch.masked import as_masked_tensor
...: data = torch.tensor([1,2,3])
...: mask = torch.tensor([True,False,True])
...: mt = as_masked_tensor(data, mask).to('cuda')
...: mt.get_data().device, mt.get_mask().device
/home/zong/code/pytorch/torch/masked/maskedtensor/core.py:247: UserWarning: The PyTorch API of MaskedTensors is in prototype stage and will change in the near future. Please open a Github issue for features requests and see our documentation on the torch.masked module for further information about the project.
return MaskedTensor(data, mask)
/home/zong/code/pytorch/torch/masked/maskedtensor/_ops_refs.py:354: UserWarning: The PyTorch API of MaskedTensors is in prototype stage and will change in the near future. Please open a Github issue for features requests and see our documentation on the torch.masked module for further information about the project.
return MaskedTensor(new_data, _maybe_get_mask(args[0]))
Out[1]: (device(type='cuda', index=0), device(type='cuda', index=0))
In [2]: mt.sum(dim=0)
/home/zong/code/pytorch/torch/masked/maskedtensor/core.py:247: UserWarning: The PyTorch API of MaskedTensors is in prototype stage and will change in the near future. Please open a Github issue for features requests and see our documentation on the torch.masked module for further information about the project.
return MaskedTensor(data, mask)
Out[2]: MaskedTensor(4, True)
```
```bash
pytest test/test_maskedtensor.py -vv
```
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/151205
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
`tuple[int]` means only a tuple of length 1, which is not what was intended.
```python
loss = torch.masked.mean(loss, mask=mask, dim=(-1, -2)) # Argument of type "tuple[Literal[-1], Literal[-2]]" cannot be assigned to parameter "dim" of type "DimOrDims"
```
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/149870
Approved by: https://github.com/Skylion007
When calling `torch.masked.mean(...)` with a boolean tensor, the dtype is inferred to be bool. When the mean is being computed, the sum operator is used. When the sum operator is used with dtype=torch.bool, the result is clamped to True (1) leading to an incorrect mean being calculated.
The below example shows how the incorrect result occurs:
```
a = torch.tensor([True, True])
count = torch.sum(torch.ones(a.shape, dtype=torch.int64)) # 2
total = torch.sum(a, dtype=torch.bool) # True (1)
mean = total / count # 0.5
```
This PR upcasts the dtype used for the sumation to int32 in the case of bool tensors allowing for the correct result to be computed.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/139999
Approved by: https://github.com/cpuhrsch
When calling `torch.masked.mean(...)` with a boolean tensor, the dtype is inferred to be bool. When the mean is being computed, the sum operator is used. When the sum operator is used with dtype=torch.bool, the result is clamped to True (1) leading to an incorrect mean being calculated.
The below example shows how the incorrect result occurs:
```
a = torch.tensor([True, True])
count = torch.sum(torch.ones(a.shape, dtype=torch.int64)) # 2
total = torch.sum(a, dtype=torch.bool) # True (1)
mean = total / count # 0.5
```
This PR upcasts the dtype used for the sumation to int32 in the case of bool tensors allowing for the correct result to be computed.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/139999
Approved by: https://github.com/cpuhrsch
Hi,
I noticed the `unfold` operator was missing on MaskedTensor.
I tested that my change works when calling unfold and backward on a `MaskedTensor` but I didn't find the tests for the dispatch of such operation. Where is it?
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/125262
Approved by: https://github.com/cpuhrsch
Hi,
I noticed the `unfold` operator was missing on MaskedTensor.
I tested that my change works when calling unfold and backward on a `MaskedTensor` but I didn't find the tests for the dispatch of such operation. Where is it?
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/125262
Approved by: https://github.com/cpuhrsch
