-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.3k
[CI] Pooling models mteb test uses enforce_eager #22878
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
Conversation
👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM project. 💬 Join our developer Slack at https://slack.vllm.ai to discuss your PR in #pr-reviews, coordinate on features in #feat- channels, or join special interest groups in #sig- channels. Just a reminder: PRs would not trigger full CI run by default. Instead, it would only run Once the PR is approved and ready to go, your PR reviewer(s) can run CI to test the changes comprehensively before merging. To run CI, PR reviewers can either: Add 🚀 |
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.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a change to default pooling models to use eager execution, addressing potential numerical precision issues with torch.compile
. The implementation correctly makes the enforce_eager
configuration optional and sets its default value based on the model's runner type. My review identified a critical issue where a new assertion could cause a crash if model_config
is not set. I have provided a suggestion to fix this issue. Otherwise, the changes are sound.
847ad4a
to
88787ba
Compare
cf40990
to
39f9f90
Compare
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com>
39f9f90
to
d3c9154
Compare
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.
Yeah let's increase the tolerance for now, seems that there are more and more tests that fail the CI
First, exclude the effects caused by torch compile, which might be the biggest difference between v0 and v1. I plan to conduct a long-term numerical precision statistics to see which factors affect numerical precision. |
Let's observe for a long time. 20250815 baseline:
|
Can we merge this PR? |
The test passed so sure |
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com> Signed-off-by: Duncan Moss <djm.moss@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com> Signed-off-by: Boyuan Feng <boyuan@meta.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com> Signed-off-by: Xiao Yu <xiao.yu@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com> Signed-off-by: Xiao Yu <xiao.yu@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com>
Signed-off-by: wang.yuqi <noooop@126.com>
Purpose
Fix another flaky test by increasing tolerance. Related to #22862
FIX #22923
cc @maxdebayser @DarkLight1337
Test Plan
mteb_test_embed_models
Test Result
pass
(Optional) Documentation Update
Essential Elements of an Effective PR Description Checklist
supported_models.md
andexamples
for a new model.