There are some I can't easily switch due to reasons like:
- Dynamo modelling the guard
- BC concerns (for torch.autograd.set_multithreading_enabled)
Test Plan:
- existing tests
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/102642
Approved by: https://github.com/albanD
Based on @ezyang's suggestion, mode stack now has "one true mode" which is the _only_ mode that can ever be active at the C++ level. That mode's torch dispatch is just to take the top mode in the stack, reenable itself (if we aren't at the end of the mode stack), and run the top mode's torch_{dispatch|function}
This maintains that in the middle of a mode's torch dispatch, the mode itself will not be active. It changes the function the user has to call to see what the current mode is (no longer queries the C++, it's python only) but allows the user to also see the entire mode stack easily
Removes `enable_torch_dispatch_mode` and `.restore()` since neither makes sense in this new setup
### Background
Why do we want this? Well, a pretty common pattern that was coming up was that users had to do something like
```python
## PRE-PR UX
def f(mode):
with mode.restore(): # user needs to understand this restore thing?
...
with Mode() as m:
pass
f(m)
```
Many users were getting error from forgetting to call `.restore` or from forgetting to add the (tbh weird) "mode instantiation" step where they use the mode as a context manager with an empty body. Really, they wanted to treat modes like context managers and just write
```python
## FROM FEEDBACK, USER DESIRED CODE. POSSIBLE POST-PR
def f(mode):
with mode:
...
f(Mode())
```
** Technical Details **
With the old mode stack, we basically had a linked list so the mode itself could only be used once and had a fixed parent. In this new design, the mode stack is just a python list that we're pushing to and popping from. There's only one mode that's ever active at the C++ level and it runs the next mode in the Python list. The modes don't have state on them anymore
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/84774
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang, https://github.com/zou3519
Currently we have 2 ways of doing the same thing for torch dispatch and function modes:
`with push_torch_dispatch_mode(X)` or `with X.push(...)`
is now the equivalent of doing
`with X()`
This removes the first API (which is older and private so we don't need to go through a deprecation cycle)
There is some risk here that this might land race with a PR that uses the old API but in general it seems like most are using the `with X()` API or `enable_torch_dispatch_mode(X())` which isn't getting removed.
EDIT: left the `with X.push(...)` API since there were ~3 land races with that over the past day or so. But made it give a warning and ask users to use the other API
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/78215
Approved by: https://github.com/ezyang
This PR is doing a few interrelated things, all of which are necessary to get correctness. Read the comment in torch/fx/experimental/proxy_tensor.py for the high level overview.
Let's break down the parts of this PR:
* Bug fix where `enable_torch_dispatch_mode` with `None` doesn't work. This make `enable_torch_dispatch_mode(current_mode.inner)` work which is the basis for how we temporarily disable fake tensor mode.
* Bug fix for when fake tensor mode is combined with a non-mode tensor subclass. This actually could be ablated from this PR but it affects where the logic for allowing non fake tensor inputs with lift goes, so it's all in here in one go. There are some relevant tests for the fix in fake tensor, but it turns out I didn't need this because I'm always using proxy tensors as a mode (which ensures the ordering is right.)
* New `lift_fresh` view operator. Note that like lift, we have to manually write the functionalize kernel for these functions.
* The actual change, which is to save constants when we see them in the proxy tensor mode, and then propagate them as we go (because otherwise you'll handle mutations on constants incorrectly--see test.)
This is mildly BC-breaking if anyone was previously interposing on
at::lift, but this operator was relatively new and I checked
functorch which has no explicit reference to lift. So I think it
should not be too disruptive.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/81192
Approved by: https://github.com/samdow, https://github.com/bdhirsh
