Skip to content

[Static Runtime] Prototype: Arena allocate StorageImpls for managed tensors #66130

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

Closed
wants to merge 14 commits into from

Conversation

swolchok
Copy link
Contributor

@swolchok swolchok commented Oct 5, 2021

Stack from ghstack:

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: D31357486

…ensors

Prototype as mentioned in SR chat. Have to run; will clean up and fill in proper summary later.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
@pytorch-probot
Copy link

pytorch-probot bot commented Oct 5, 2021

CI Flow Status

⚛️ CI Flow

Ruleset - Version: v1
Ruleset - File: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/42557cd92c571e8d8380b81cc5396139ae8d2d55/.github/generated-ciflow-ruleset.json
PR ciflow labels: ciflow/default

Workflows Labels (bold enabled) Status
Triggered Workflows
linux-bionic-py3.6-clang9 ciflow/all, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux, ciflow/noarch, ciflow/xla ✅ triggered
linux-vulkan-bionic-py3.6-clang9 ciflow/all, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux, ciflow/vulkan ✅ triggered
linux-xenial-cuda11.3-py3.6-gcc7 ciflow/all, ciflow/cuda, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux ✅ triggered
linux-xenial-py3-clang5-mobile-build ciflow/all, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux, ciflow/mobile ✅ triggered
linux-xenial-py3-clang5-mobile-custom-build-dynamic ciflow/all, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux, ciflow/mobile ✅ triggered
linux-xenial-py3-clang5-mobile-custom-build-static ciflow/all, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux, ciflow/mobile ✅ triggered
linux-xenial-py3.6-clang7-asan ciflow/all, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux, ciflow/sanitizers ✅ triggered
linux-xenial-py3.6-clang7-onnx ciflow/all, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux, ciflow/onnx ✅ triggered
linux-xenial-py3.6-gcc5.4 ciflow/all, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux ✅ triggered
linux-xenial-py3.6-gcc7 ciflow/all, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux ✅ triggered
linux-xenial-py3.6-gcc7-bazel-test ciflow/all, ciflow/bazel, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux ✅ triggered
pytorch-linux-xenial-py3-clang5-android-ndk-r19c-gradle-custom-build-single ciflow/all, ciflow/android, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux ✅ triggered
pytorch-linux-xenial-py3-clang5-android-ndk-r19c-gradle-custom-build-single-full-jit ciflow/all, ciflow/android, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/default, ciflow/linux ✅ triggered
win-vs2019-cpu-py3 ciflow/all, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/default, ciflow/win ✅ triggered
win-vs2019-cuda11.3-py3 ciflow/all, ciflow/cuda, ciflow/default, ciflow/win ✅ triggered
Skipped Workflows
caffe2-linux-xenial-py3.6-gcc5.4 ciflow/all, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/linux 🚫 skipped
docker-builds ciflow/all 🚫 skipped
ios-12-5-1-arm64 ciflow/all, ciflow/ios, ciflow/macos 🚫 skipped
ios-12-5-1-arm64-coreml ciflow/all, ciflow/ios, ciflow/macos 🚫 skipped
ios-12-5-1-arm64-custom-ops ciflow/all, ciflow/ios, ciflow/macos 🚫 skipped
ios-12-5-1-arm64-full-jit ciflow/all, ciflow/ios, ciflow/macos 🚫 skipped
ios-12-5-1-arm64-metal ciflow/all, ciflow/ios, ciflow/macos 🚫 skipped
ios-12-5-1-x86-64 ciflow/all, ciflow/ios, ciflow/macos 🚫 skipped
ios-12-5-1-x86-64-coreml ciflow/all, ciflow/ios, ciflow/macos 🚫 skipped
ios-12-5-1-x86-64-full-jit ciflow/all, ciflow/ios, ciflow/macos 🚫 skipped
libtorch-linux-xenial-cuda10.2-py3.6-gcc7 ciflow/all, ciflow/cuda, ciflow/libtorch, ciflow/linux 🚫 skipped
libtorch-linux-xenial-cuda11.3-py3.6-gcc7 ciflow/all, ciflow/cuda, ciflow/libtorch, ciflow/linux 🚫 skipped
linux-bionic-cuda10.2-py3.9-gcc7 ciflow/all, ciflow/cuda, ciflow/linux, ciflow/slow 🚫 skipped
linux-xenial-py3-clang5-mobile-code-analysis ciflow/all, ciflow/linux, ciflow/mobile 🚫 skipped
parallelnative-linux-xenial-py3.6-gcc5.4 ciflow/all, ciflow/cpu, ciflow/linux 🚫 skipped
periodic-libtorch-linux-xenial-cuda11.1-py3.6-gcc7 ciflow/all, ciflow/cuda, ciflow/libtorch, ciflow/linux, ciflow/scheduled 🚫 skipped
periodic-linux-xenial-cuda10.2-py3-gcc7-slow-gradcheck ciflow/all, ciflow/cuda, ciflow/linux, ciflow/scheduled, ciflow/slow, ciflow/slow-gradcheck 🚫 skipped
periodic-linux-xenial-cuda11.1-py3.6-gcc7 ciflow/all, ciflow/cuda, ciflow/linux, ciflow/scheduled 🚫 skipped
periodic-win-vs2019-cuda11.1-py3 ciflow/all, ciflow/cuda, ciflow/scheduled, ciflow/win 🚫 skipped

You can add a comment to the PR and tag @pytorchbot with the following commands:
# ciflow rerun, "ciflow/default" will always be added automatically
@pytorchbot ciflow rerun

# ciflow rerun with additional labels "-l <ciflow/label_name>", which is equivalent to adding these labels manually and trigger the rerun
@pytorchbot ciflow rerun -l ciflow/scheduled -l ciflow/slow

For more information, please take a look at the CI Flow Wiki.

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

facebook-github-bot commented Oct 5, 2021

🔗 Helpful links

💊 CI failures summary and remediations

As of commit 42557cd (more details on the Dr. CI page):


💚 💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚 💚


This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI (expand for details).

Please report bugs/suggestions to the (internal) Dr. CI Users group.

Click here to manually regenerate this comment.

@facebook-github-bot facebook-github-bot added oncall: jit Add this issue/PR to JIT oncall triage queue cla signed labels Oct 5, 2021
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2021
…ensors

Prototype as mentioned in SR chat. Have to run; will clean up and fill in proper summary later.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

ghstack-source-id: 139698139
Pull Request resolved: #66130
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2021
Pull Request resolved: #66130

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

ghstack-source-id: 139765254

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 15, 2021
Pull Request resolved: #66130

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

ghstack-source-id: 140693022

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2021
Pull Request resolved: #66130

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

ghstack-source-id: 140876408

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2021
Pull Request resolved: #66130

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

ghstack-source-id: 140988867

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2021
Pull Request resolved: #66130

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

ghstack-source-id: 141595119

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 1, 2021
Pull Request resolved: #66130

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

ghstack-source-id: 142105253

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2021
Pull Request resolved: #66130

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

ghstack-source-id: 142192613

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2021
Pull Request resolved: #66130

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

ghstack-source-id: 142226109

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 3, 2021
Pull Request resolved: #66130

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

ghstack-source-id: 142354034

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)
…r managed tensors"


We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
swolchok added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2021
Pull Request resolved: #66130

We're reusing backing storage for these tensors, which is only safe because they have non-overlapping lifetimes. Accordingly, it seems that they can also share their StorageImpl.

ghstack-source-id: 142427752

Differential Revision: [D31357486](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D31357486/)
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been merged in b0c0529.

@facebook-github-bot facebook-github-bot deleted the gh/swolchok/340/head branch November 8, 2021 15:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cla signed Merged oncall: jit Add this issue/PR to JIT oncall triage queue
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants