Summary:
The fact that these functions are only used in a single test might be a good enough reason to move them to that module.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/60862
Reviewed By: H-Huang
Differential Revision: D31141354
Pulled By: mruberry
fbshipit-source-id: 6ce1f721b88620c5f46222ad1b942bc689f0a3e0
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/60778
Matches parens and the opening `<<<` to make a more accurate kernel launch check.
Test Plan:
```
buck test //caffe2/test:kernel_launch_checks
```
Reviewed By: ngimel
Differential Revision: D29401624
fbshipit-source-id: 8649af7c33e67dbb24044af0134b1cea6f2e5dc3
Summary:
`check_kernel_launches.py` currently gives a false positive in instances such as:
```
735: <<<smallIndexGrid, smallIndexBlock, 0, stream>>>( \
736: outInfo, selfInfo, indicesInfo, \
737: outSelectDim, selfSelectDim, static_cast<TYPE>(sliceSize), \
738: selfSelectDimSize); \
739: C10_CUDA_KERNEL_LAUNCH_CHECK();
```
because the newlines after the last `\` are not consumed by the regex. This fixes that.
In addition, the regex is modified to provide greater context for the start of the kernel launch. This changes the context from:
```
157: (
158: size, X_strides, Y_dims, X, Y);
```
to
```
157: <<<M, CAFFE_CUDA_NUM_THREADS, 0, context->cuda_stream()>>>(
158: size, X_strides, Y_dims, X, Y);
```
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/49365
Test Plan:
```
buck test //caffe2/test:kernel_launch_checks -- --print-passing-details
```
Reviewed By: aakshintala
Differential Revision: D25545402
Pulled By: r-barnes
fbshipit-source-id: 76feac6a002187239853752b892f4517722a77bf
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/48615
Convert the macro from `TORCH_CUDA_KERNEL_LAUNCH_CHECK` to `C10_CUDA_KERNEL_LAUNCH_CHECK`, since it is now accessible through c10, not just torch.
Test Plan:
```
buck build //caffe2/caffe2:caffe2_cu
buck build //caffe2/aten:ATen-cu
buck test //caffe2/test:kernel_launch_checks -- --print-passing-details
```
Reviewed By: jianyuh
Differential Revision: D25228727
fbshipit-source-id: 9c65feb3d0ea3fbd31f1dcaecdb88ef0534f9121
Summary:
Caffe2 and Torch currently does not have a consistent mechanism for determining if a kernel has launched successfully. The result is difficult-to-detect or silent errors. This diff provides functionality to fix that. Subsequent diffs on the stack fix the identified issues.
Kernel launch errors may arise if invalid launch parameters (number of blocks, number of threads, shared memory, or stream id) are specified incorrectly for the hardware or for other reasons. Interestingly, unless these launch errors are specifically checked for CUDA will silently fail and return garbage answers which can affect downstream computation. Therefore, catching launch errors is important.
Launches are currently checked by placing
```
AT_CUDA_CHECK(cudaGetLastError());
```
somewhere below the kernel launch. This is bad for two reasons.
1. The check may be performed at a site distant to the kernel launch, making debugging difficult.
2. The separation of the launch from the check means that it is difficult for humans and static analyzers to determine whether the check has taken place.
This diff defines a macro:
```
#define TORCH_CUDA_KERNEL_LAUNCH_CHECK() AT_CUDA_CHECK(cudaGetLastError())
```
which clearly indicates the check.
This diff also introduces a new test which analyzes code to identify kernel launches and determines whether the line immediately following the launch contains `TORCH_CUDA_KERNEL_LAUNCH_CHECK();`.
A search of the Caffe2 codebase identifies 104 instances of `AT_CUDA_CHECK(cudaGetLastError());` while the foregoing test identifies 1,467 launches which are not paired with a check. Visual inspection indicates that few of these are false positives, highlighting the need for some sort of static analysis system.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/46474
Test Plan:
The new test is run with:
```
buck test //caffe2/test:kernel_launch_checks -- --print-passing-details
```
And should be launched automatically with the other land tests. (TODO: Is it?)
The test is currently set up only to provide warnings but can later be adjusted to require checks.
Otherwise, I rely on the existing test frameworks to ensure that changes resulting from reorganizing existing launch checks don't cause regressions.
Reviewed By: ngimel
Differential Revision: D24309971
Pulled By: r-barnes
fbshipit-source-id: 0dc97984a408138ad06ff2bca86ad17ef2fdf0b6
