when a tensor has unbacked symbols it can be general enough to represent both contiguous and non contiguous tensors.
in that case we cant really evaluate is_contiguous. In many places in the code base, we check for is_contiguous to take a fast path. but the general path usually works for both contiguous and not contiguous in that case we probably want
to use definitely _contiguous API.
This is appleid for reshape in this PR and also to tensor meta data computation, the meta data now will have an attribute that says that its contiguous when its always contiguous. We would store that only if definitely _contiguous is true now.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/153432
Approved by: https://github.com/bobrenjc93
when a tensor has unbacked symbols it can be general enough to represent both contiguous and non contiguous tensors.
in that case we cant really evaluate is_contiguous. In many places in the code base, we check for is_contiguous to take a fast path. but the general path usually works for both contiguous and not contiguous in that case we probably want
to use definitely _contiguous API.
This is appleid for reshape in this PR and also to tensor meta data computation, the meta data now will have an attribute that says that its contiguous when its always contiguous. We would store that only if definitely _contiguous is true now.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/153432
Approved by: https://github.com/bobrenjc93
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
