Skip to content

[ExecuTorch][XNNPACK] Don't partition per_tensor weights with qd8 #8787

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 4 commits into from

Conversation

digantdesai
Copy link
Contributor

@digantdesai digantdesai commented Feb 27, 2025

Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):

This is not supported, so we shouldn't partition it.

Add an expectedFailure test to indicate that this is not supported.

Differential Revision: D70343584

This is not supported, so we shouldn't partition it.

Add an expectedFailure test to indicate that this is not supported.

Differential Revision: [D70343584](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D70343584/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
@digantdesai digantdesai requested a review from mcr229 as a code owner February 27, 2025 20:45
Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented Feb 27, 2025

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/8787

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

✅ No Failures

As of commit 1b91adb with merge base 542480c (image):
💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

digantdesai added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 27, 2025
This is not supported, so we shouldn't partition it.

Add an expectedFailure test to indicate that this is not supported.

Differential Revision: [D70343584](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D70343584/)

ghstack-source-id: 268822901
Pull Request resolved: #8787
@facebook-github-bot facebook-github-bot added the CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. label Feb 27, 2025
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D70343584

…ith qd8"

This is not supported, so we shouldn't partition it.

Add an expectedFailure test to indicate that this is not supported.

Differential Revision: [D70343584](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D70343584/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
digantdesai added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2025
Pull Request resolved: #8787

This is not supported, so we shouldn't partition it.

Add an expectedFailure test to indicate that this is not supported.
ghstack-source-id: 268894461
@exported-using-ghexport

Differential Revision: [D70343584](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D70343584/)
Copy link
Contributor

@mcr229 mcr229 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice change, i didn't add these types of checks when i first added this because it was going to be too tedious along with all the other refactoring i had to do, so I kind of left this as a todo, when users encounter it.

@digantdesai
Copy link
Contributor Author

nice change, i didn't add these types of checks when i first added this because it was going to be too tedious along with all the other refactoring i had to do, so I kind of left this as a todo, when users encounter it.

No worries. I started to feel gemm_config needs a refactor. It is too complex now. 😃

…ith qd8"

This is not supported, so we shouldn't partition it.

Add an expectedFailure test to indicate that this is not supported.

Differential Revision: [D70343584](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D70343584/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
…ith qd8"

This is not supported, so we shouldn't partition it.

Add an expectedFailure test to indicate that this is not supported.

Differential Revision: [D70343584](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D70343584/)

[ghstack-poisoned]
@mcr229
Copy link
Contributor

mcr229 commented Mar 3, 2025

@digantdesai perhaps we can add a util function that goes through all the quant/dequant nodes in the partition, and validates those. And we can call that for every quantized op

digantdesai added a commit to digantdesai/executorch-1 that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2025
Summary:

This is not supported, so we shouldn't partition it.

Add an expectedFailure test to indicate that this is not supported.
ghstack-source-id: 269356867
exported-using-ghexport

Reviewed By: mcr229

Differential Revision: D70343584
digantdesai added a commit to digantdesai/executorch-1 that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2025
Summary:
Pull Request resolved: pytorch#8787

This is not supported, so we shouldn't partition it.

Add an expectedFailure test to indicate that this is not supported.
ghstack-source-id: 269356867
exported-using-ghexport

Reviewed By: mcr229

Differential Revision: D70343584
@digantdesai digantdesai closed this Mar 4, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. topic: not user facing
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants