-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 608
Properly set mutable buffer lifespans #12182
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/12182
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ❌ 1 New Failure, 2 Unrelated FailuresAs of commit 30b033c with merge base 9905026 ( NEW FAILURE - The following job has failed:
FLAKY - The following job failed but was likely due to flakiness present on trunk:
BROKEN TRUNK - The following job failed but was present on the merge base:👉 Rebase onto the `viable/strict` branch to avoid these failures
This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D77618047 |
This PR needs a
|
Summary: Earlier iterations of mutable buffer memory planning relied on the insert copy_ pass to inject the placeholder node as the output. That is pretty hacky and doesn't compose well with the reinplacing pass. Fortunately we already have this pass so we can manually set the lifespan here to be infinite. Reviewed By: nitish2112, larryliu0820 Differential Revision: D77618047
1110b18
to
5b2107f
Compare
Summary: Earlier iterations of mutable buffer memory planning relied on the insert copy_ pass to inject the placeholder node as the output. That is pretty hacky and doesn't compose well with the reinplacing pass. Fortunately we already have this pass so we can manually set the lifespan here to be infinite. Reviewed By: nitish2112, larryliu0820 Differential Revision: D77618047
5b2107f
to
065f3ca
Compare
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D77618047 |
1 similar comment
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D77618047 |
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#12182 Earlier iterations of mutable buffer memory planning relied on the insert copy_ pass to inject the placeholder node as the output. That is pretty hacky and doesn't compose well with the reinplacing pass. Fortunately we already have this pass so we can manually set the lifespan here to be infinite. Reviewed By: nitish2112, larryliu0820 Differential Revision: D77618047
065f3ca
to
305c56e
Compare
Summary: Earlier iterations of mutable buffer memory planning relied on the insert copy_ pass to inject the placeholder node as the output. That is pretty hacky and doesn't compose well with the reinplacing pass. Fortunately we already have this pass so we can manually set the lifespan here to be infinite. Reviewed By: nitish2112, larryliu0820 Differential Revision: D77618047
305c56e
to
30b033c
Compare
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D77618047 |
Summary: Earlier iterations of mutable buffer memory planning relied on the insert copy_ pass to inject the placeholder node as the output. That is pretty hacky and doesn't compose well with the reinplacing pass. Fortunately we already have this pass so we can manually set the lifespan here to be infinite.
Reviewed By: nitish2112
Differential Revision: D77618047