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
Related: #148920
This PR:
* Introduces a new file `test/cpp_extensions/python_agnostic_extension/test/test_python_agnostic.py` with testing that follows the usual python testing patterns
* This replaces the testing for python_agnostic in `test/test_cpp_extensions_aot.py`
After this PR, it is now possible to run:
```
python test/cpp_extensions/python_agnostic_extension/test/test_python_agnostic.py
```
and the test will build the prerequisite wheel before running the tests.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/153274
Approved by: https://github.com/janeyx99, https://github.com/cyyever
ghstack dependencies: #153264
Related: #148920
This PR:
* Provides a helper `install_cpp_extension(extension_root)` for building C++ extensions. This is intended to be used in `TestMyCppExtension.setUpClass()`
* Updates libtorch_agnostic tests to use this
* Deletes preexisting libtorch_agnostic tests from `test/test_cpp_extensions_aot.py`
* Fixes `run_test.py` to actually run tests in `test/cpp_extensions/libtorch_agnostic_extension/test/test_libtorch_agnostic.py` to avoid losing coverage. This wasn't being run due to logic excluding tests that start with "cpp"; this is fixed now
After this PR, it is now possible to run:
```
python test/cpp_extensions/libtorch_agnostic_extension/test/test_libtorch_agnostic.py
```
and the test will build the `libtorch_agnostic` extension before running the tests.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/153264
Approved by: https://github.com/janeyx99
This change does 2 important things:
(a) Instead of relying on IValue type as source of truth, we use the schema as the source of truth, which is important as IValue types are overloaded and can ambiguously convert incorrectly. For example, a MemoryFormat will look like an int + get converted to an int64_t vs a MemoryFormat!
(b) This PR expands support for many more types to encompass way more schemas, e.g., Optional, Device, dtype, etc. The main win from this PR is the ability for aoti_torch_call_dispatcher to call TensorFactory ops like ones_like/empty_like!
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/149052
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD
This PR adds two main parts:
- shim.h stable C APIs into torch::Library APIs
- a higher level API in torch/csrc/stable/library.h that calls into this shim.h + otherwise is self contained
Goal: custom kernel writers should be able to call the apis in the directories above in order to register their library in a way that allows their custom extension to run with a different libtorch version than it was built with.
Subplots resolved:
- Do we want a whole separate StableLibrary or do we want to freeze torch::Library and add `m.stable_impl(cstring, void (*fn)(void **, int64_t, int64_t)` into it
- Yes, we want a separate StableLibrary. We cannot freeze Library and it is NOT header only.
- Should I use unint64_t as the common denominator instead of void* to support 32bit architectures better?
- Yes, and done
- Should I add a stable `def` and `fragment` when those can be done in python?
- I think we do want these --- and now they're done
- Where should library_stable_impl.cpp live? -- no longer relevant
- I need some solid test cases to make sure everything's going ok. I've intentionally thrown in a bunch of random dtypes into the signature, but I still haven't tested returning multiple things, returning nothing, complex dtypes, etc.
- Have since tested all the torch library endpoints. the others can be tested in a followup to separate components that need to be in shim.h vs can be added later
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/148124
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD, https://github.com/zou3519, https://github.com/atalman
This PR adds two main parts:
- shim.h stable C APIs into torch::Library APIs
- a higher level API in torch/csrc/stable/library.h that calls into this shim.h + otherwise is self contained
Goal: custom kernel writers should be able to call the apis in the directories above in order to register their library in a way that allows their custom extension to run with a different libtorch version than it was built with.
Subplots resolved:
- Do we want a whole separate StableLibrary or do we want to freeze torch::Library and add `m.stable_impl(cstring, void (*fn)(void **, int64_t, int64_t)` into it
- Yes, we want a separate StableLibrary. We cannot freeze Library and it is NOT header only.
- Should I use unint64_t as the common denominator instead of void* to support 32bit architectures better?
- Yes, and done
- Should I add a stable `def` and `fragment` when those can be done in python?
- I think we do want these --- and now they're done
- Where should library_stable_impl.cpp live? -- no longer relevant
- I need some solid test cases to make sure everything's going ok. I've intentionally thrown in a bunch of random dtypes into the signature, but I still haven't tested returning multiple things, returning nothing, complex dtypes, etc.
- Have since tested all the torch library endpoints. the others can be tested in a followup to separate components that need to be in shim.h vs can be added later
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/148124
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD, https://github.com/zou3519
This patch adds support for sycl kernels build via `torch.utils.cpp_extension.load`, `torch.utils.cpp_extension.load_inline` and (new) `class SyclExtension` APIs. Files having `.sycl` extension are considered to have sycl kernels and are compiled with `icpx` (dpc++ sycl compiler from Intel). Files with other extensions, `.cpp`, `.cu`, are handled as before. API supports building sycl along with other file types into single extension.
Note that `.sycl` file extension is a PyTorch convention for files containing sycl code which I propose to adopt. We did follow up with compiler team to introduce such file extension in the compiler, but they are opposed to this. At the same time discussion around sycl file extension and adding sycl language support into such tools as cmake is ongoing. Eventually cmake also considers to introduce some file extension convention for sycl. I hope we can further influence cmake and compiler communities to broader adopt `.sycl` file extension.
By default SYCL kernels are compiled for all Intel GPU devices for which pytorch native aten SYCL kernels are compiled. At the moment `pvc,xe-lpg`. This behavior can be overridden by setting `TORCH_XPU_ARCH_LIST` environment variables to the comma separated list of desired devices to compile for.
Fixes: #132944
CC: @gujinghui @EikanWang @fengyuan14 @guangyey @jgong5
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/132945
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD, https://github.com/guangyey, https://github.com/malfet
Co-authored-by: Nikita Shulga <2453524+malfet@users.noreply.github.com>
This patch adds support for sycl kernels build via `torch.utils.cpp_extension.load`, `torch.utils.cpp_extension.load_inline` and (new) `class SyclExtension` APIs. Files having `.sycl` extension are considered to have sycl kernels and are compiled with `icpx` (dpc++ sycl compiler from Intel). Files with other extensions, `.cpp`, `.cu`, are handled as before. API supports building sycl along with other file types into single extension.
Note that `.sycl` file extension is a PyTorch convention for files containing sycl code which I propose to adopt. We did follow up with compiler team to introduce such file extension in the compiler, but they are opposed to this. At the same time discussion around sycl file extension and adding sycl language support into such tools as cmake is ongoing. Eventually cmake also considers to introduce some file extension convention for sycl. I hope we can further influence cmake and compiler communities to broader adopt `.sycl` file extension.
By default SYCL kernels are compiled for all Intel GPU devices for which pytorch native aten SYCL kernels are compiled. At the moment `pvc,xe-lpg`. This behavior can be overridden by setting `TORCH_XPU_ARCH_LIST` environment variables to the comma separated list of desired devices to compile for.
Fixes: #132944
CC: @gujinghui @EikanWang @fengyuan14 @guangyey @jgong5
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/132945
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD, https://github.com/guangyey
Getting tested with ao, but now there is a real test i added.
## What does this PR do?
We want to allow custom PyTorch extensions to be able to build one wheel for multiple Python versions, in other words, achieve python agnosticism. It turns out that there is such a way that setuptools/Python provides already! Namely, if the user promises to use only the Python limited API in their extension, they can pass in `py_limited_api` to their Extension class and to the bdist_wheel command (with a min python version) in order to build 1 wheel that will suffice across multiple Python versions.
Sounds lovely! Why don't people do that already with PyTorch? Well 2 things. This workflow is hardly documented (even searching for python agnostic specifically does not reveal many answers) so I'd expect that people simply don't know about it. But even if they did, _PyTorch_ custom Extensions would still not work because we always link torch_python, which does not abide by py_limited_api rules.
So this is where this PR comes in! We respect when the user specifies py_limited_api and skip linking torch_python under that condition, allowing users to enroll in the provided functionality I just described.
## How do I know this PR works?
I manually tested my silly little ultra_norm locally (with `import python_agnostic`) and wrote a test case for the extension showing that
- torch_python doesn't show up in the ldd tree
- no Py- symbols show up
It may be a little confusing that our test case is actually python-free (more clean than python-agnostic) but it is sufficient (and not necessary) towards showing that this change works.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/138088
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang, https://github.com/albanD
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
Applies the remaining flake8-comprehension fixes and checks. This changes replace all remaining unnecessary generator expressions with list/dict/set comprehensions which are more succinct, performant, and better supported by our torch.jit compiler. It also removes useless generators such as 'set(a for a in b)`, resolving it into just the set call.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/94676
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
Summary:
Make `TORCH_CUDABLAS_CHECK` and `TORCH_CUSOLVER_CHECK` available in custom extensions by exporting the internal functions called by the both macros.
Rel: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/67073
cc xwang233 ptrblck
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/67161
Reviewed By: jbschlosser
Differential Revision: D31984694
Pulled By: ngimel
fbshipit-source-id: 0035ecd1398078cf7d3abc23aaefda57aaa31106
Summary:
This PR implements the necessary hooks/stubs/enums/etc for complete ONNX Runtime (ORT) Eager Mode integration. The actual extension will live out of tree at https://github.com/pytorch/ort.
We have been [working on this at Microsoft](https://github.com/microsoft/onnxruntime-pytorch/tree/eager-ort/torch_onnxruntime) for the last few months, and are finally ready to contribute the PyTorch core changes upstream (nothing major or exciting, just the usual boilerplate for adding new backends).
The ORT backend will allow us to ferry [almost] all torch ops into granular ONNX kernels that ORT will eagerly execute against any devices it supports (therefore, we only need a single ORT backend from a PyTorch perspective).
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/58248
Reviewed By: astaff
Differential Revision: D30344992
Pulled By: albanD
fbshipit-source-id: 69082b32121246340d686e16653626114b7714b2
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/53617
I'm trying to make `pytest test/*.py` work--right now, it fails during
test collection. This removes a few of the easier to fix pytest
collection problems one way or another. I have two remaining problems
which is that the default dtype is trashed on entry to test_torch.py and
test_cuda.py, I'll try to fix those in a follow up.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Test Plan: Imported from OSS
Reviewed By: mruberry
Differential Revision: D26918377
Pulled By: ezyang
fbshipit-source-id: 42069786882657e1e3ee974acb3ec48115f16210
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/39459
Update to this PR: this code isn't going to fully solve https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/37010. The changes required for 37010 is more than this PR initially planned. Instead, this PR switches op registration of rng related tests to use the new API (similar to what was done in #36925)
Test Plan:
1) unit tests
Imported from OSS
Reviewed By: ezyang
Differential Revision: D22264889
fbshipit-source-id: 82488ac6e3b762a756818434e22c2a0f9cb9dd47
Summary:
This updates assertEqual and assertEqual-like functions to either require both or neither of atol and rtol be specified. This should improve clarity around handling precision in the test suite, and it allows us to remove the legacy positional atol argument from assertEqual. In addition, the "message" kwarg is replace with a kwarg-only "msg" argument whose name is consistent with unittest's assertEqual argument.
In the future we could make "msg" an optional third positional argument to be more consistent with unittest's assertEqual, but requiring it be specified should be clear, and we can easily update the signature to make "msg" an optional positional argument in the future, too.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/38872
Differential Revision: D21740237
Pulled By: mruberry
fbshipit-source-id: acbc027aa1d7877a49664d94db9a5fff91a07042
