-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.3k
[BugFix] Fix topk_softmax assert #19764
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
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.
Summary of Changes
Hello @ProExpertProg, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request addresses a bug by enhancing the robustness of the topk_softmax
kernel. My change ensures that a critical input tensor's data type is validated at runtime across all build configurations, thereby improving the stability and reliability of the MoE (Mixture of Experts) component.
Highlights
- Bug Fix & Runtime Safety: I've replaced a debug-only
assert
with aTORCH_CHECK
incsrc/moe/topk_softmax_kernels.cu
. This ensures that the type validation fortopk_indices
is performed at runtime in all builds (debug and release), preventing potential issues that might arise from incorrect tensor types in production. - Type Consistency: The
TORCH_CHECK
now explicitly validates thattopk_indices
is ofat::ScalarType::Long
. This change fromat::ScalarType::Int64
aligns with common PyTorch type naming conventions for 64-bit integers, improving clarity and consistency.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command>
or @gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
59b76a4
to
051cb94
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.
Code Review
This pull request fixes an assertion in topk_softmax
by replacing it with TORCH_CHECK
and using at::ScalarType::Long
, ensuring type validation in all builds.
Thanks for the fix @ProExpertProg 🙌 |
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
051cb94
to
8a049cf
Compare
Can you merge from main to see if the CI failures can be resolved? |
Signed-off-by: Luka Govedic <[email protected]>
8a049cf
to
96fcf5c
Compare
Essential Elements of an Effective PR Description Checklist
supported_models.md
andexamples
for a new model.Fix the assert (only compiled in debug mode) and change it to a
TORCH_CHECK
. Introduced in #18434.Test Plan
CI
Test Result
(Optional) Documentation Update