Improve torch.compile log message in compile_model

[Vasist10]

Context

What is the purpose of this PR? Is it to

• add a new feature
• fix a bug
• update tests and/or documentation
• other (please add here)

Please link to any issues this PR addresses.
Closes #2717

Changelog

What are the changes made in this PR?
-Updated the log message in torchtune/utils/compile_model.py to read:
"Compiling model layers with torch.compile. Expect a relatively slower first step."

-Removed similar/sprinkled references elsewhere in the codebase to centralize this message.

Test plan

Please make sure to do each of the following if applicable to your PR. If you're unsure about any one of these just ask and we will happily help. We also have a contributing page for some guidance on contributing.

• run pre-commit hooks and linters (make sure you've first installed via pre-commit install)
• add unit tests for any new functionality
• update docstrings for any new or updated methods or classes
• run unit tests via pytest tests
• run recipe tests via pytest tests -m integration_test
• manually run any new or modified recipes with sufficient proof of correctness
• include relevant commands and any other artifacts in this summary (pastes of loss curves, eval results, etc.)

UX

If your function changed a public API, please add a dummy example of what the user experience will look like when calling it.
Here is a docstring example
and a tutorial example

• I did not change any public API
• I have added an example to docs or docstrings

[pytorch-bot]

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/torchtune/2777

• 📄 Preview Python docs built from this PR

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

✅ No Failures

As of commit 1c2a0da with merge base 5ecae86 ():
💚 Looks good so far! There are no failures yet. 💚

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

[facebook-github-bot]

Hi @Vasist10!

Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community.

Action Required

In order to merge any pull request (code, docs, etc.), we require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have one on file for you.

Process

In order for us to review and merge your suggested changes, please sign at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need to sign the corporate CLA.

Once the CLA is signed, our tooling will perform checks and validations. Afterwards, the pull request will be tagged with CLA signed. The tagging process may take up to 1 hour after signing. Please give it that time before contacting us about it.

If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at cla@meta.com. Thanks!

[facebook-github-bot]

Thank you for signing our Contributor License Agreement. We can now accept your code for this (and any) Meta Open Source project. Thanks!

[SalmanMohammadi]

Hi @Vasist10. Thank you for this contribution. I think this looks good, however, the test may be overkill here. If you could please remove the test I'm happy to merge this.

We can also remove the extra log here, and in a similar place across a few of our other recipes. It seems like you mentioned this in your PR but didn't include the changes - could you take a pass at removing the additional logs in the recipes?

[Vasist10]

Hi @SalmanMohammadi ,
I've made the following changes :

• Removed the torch.compile log messages across files :
• Removed the test from test_utils.py
• Fixed the tuple return type in _loss_step to avoid the Pylance warning

Thank you

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 60.08%. Comparing base (86f148b) to head (d352596).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
torchtune/training/_compile.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2777      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.93%   60.08%   -2.85%     
==========================================
  Files         437      435       -2     
  Lines       26710    26742      +32     
==========================================
- Hits        16809    16067     -742     
- Misses       9901    10675     +774     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[SalmanMohammadi]

You may need to update your pre-commit hooks as we have moved to PEP 585.

[Vasist10]

should i change it the previous version which was like this :
def _loss_step( self, batch: dict[str, torch.Tensor] ) -> (torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor):

or should i change it to this ? : def _loss_step( self, batch: dict[str, torch.Tensor] ) -> tuple[torch.Tensor, torch.Tensor]:

i just want to clarify it

[Vasist10]

Hey @SalmanMohammadi ,

Apologies for the failing check in _loss_step — that was my mistake.

Would you prefer I revert this change and switch it back to the older version? Let me know, and I’ll update it right away. Thanks again for your guidance!

[SalmanMohammadi]

@Vasist10 No worries at all! This looks good to me pending green CI.

[SalmanMohammadi]

@Vasist10 Could you run the pre-commit hooks locally and ensure they pass?