-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.8k
Introduce unsafe way to mark functions as cacheable #151603
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
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ab67176
Introduce unsafe way to mark functions as cacheable
oulgen c7a8454
None on "Introduce unsafe way to mark functions as cacheable"
oulgen 0057ecb
None on "Introduce unsafe way to mark functions as cacheable"
oulgen a14d391
None on "Introduce unsafe way to mark functions as cacheable"
oulgen 83e2d32
None on "Introduce unsafe way to mark functions as cacheable"
oulgen File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Just a thought - I'm a bit worried about a situation like:
(1) end user is running torch.compile
(2) their compiled code uses some 3rd-party library code that (incorrectly) marks a bad function as cache-safe
(3) they get silent correctness and report it to us.
One obvious debugging step would be to ask them to find any of these functions that have been marked cache-safe and turn off caching for them, so we can easily tell if it's our fault (general caching bug) or someone else's fault (3rd party lib doing unsafe things).
This will be a pain to do in the current setup - since even if we tell the user to set
unsafe_marked_cacheable_functions=[]
, the user doesn't have an easy way of ensuring that they can update this config last, after any 3rd party libs add to the config.Given this setup - what do you think of adding (yet another) config to "ignore" these markings?