-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
Revert "[Unity][Parser] Check well-formedness in the parser" #16769
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
This reverts commit 6c701fe.
|
Could we perhaps just revert the driver changes if that's what's causing the MLC failure? They are unrelated to the main functionality of the PR and I would rather have the checking for future tests |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tqchen Can this PR also add a test case for the behavior that should be preserved? From your comment here, MLC is currently relying on untested functionality in TVM, and I don't think we should revert based solely on untested functionality. Doing so would mean that there would neither be a path forward for re-applying the breaking change, nor any protection for the same breakage occurring in other PRs
I think it makes sense to revert commits that break important workflows, so long as there's a reproducible example of the failure. Otherwise, the responsibility for reproducing that failure mode falls on a developer who wasn't actually seeing the failure.
Edit: Not requesting a perfect unit test that exercises the specific bug, just a high-level test that would trigger the bug in CI.
|
@slyubomirsky reverting the driver change also works, just wonder if that will break some of the existing tests |
|
The test should have already been broken, oddly! The error was not triggered by anything I added. |
|
agree that we should have a carved out testcases here, will followup in comment soon, as well as in the original thread I believe it was along the original lines of comment in the changed order, which i assume we say that we cannot merge dyn smem beyond the kernel boundary, // MergeSharedMemoryAllocations must be applied after SplitHostDevice
// because the merged allocation site is at the beginning of each device function
mixed_pass_list.push_back(tir::transform::MergeSharedMemoryAllocations()); |
|
|
|
OK, given that case we should perhaps first revert the driver order only and disable(then look into the failed tests). We will still get a UT for the ordering case, which I assume would might relates to getting that dlight function compiled, and then reduce to a smaller case |
| int dev_type = target->GetTargetDeviceType(); | ||
| if (!(dev_type == kDLCUDA || dev_type == kDLMetal || dev_type == kDLROCM || | ||
| dev_type == kDLWebGPU)) { | ||
| if (dev_type != kDLCUDA) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this intended change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this was causing a test failure. I will find the link to the discussion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
| if (op->thread_binding.defined()) { | ||
| auto old_thread_binding = op->thread_binding.value(); | ||
| auto* ptr = old_thread_binding.CopyOnWrite(); | ||
| ptr->var = old_thread_binding->var.copy_with_dtype(new_loop_var.dtype()); | ||
| n->thread_binding = std::move(Optional<IterVar>(std::move(old_thread_binding))); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This was to address #16634 (comment)
|
#16770 Smaller-scale reversion |
|
Thank you, @tqchen , for the follow-up, and for helping to make the more targeted reversion! |
|
closing in favor of #16770. Thanks @slyubomirsky @Lunderberg |
Reverts #16569