[DTensor] Fix partial redistribution order#172277
Closed
wconstab wants to merge 8 commits intogh/wconstab/493/basefrom
Closed
[DTensor] Fix partial redistribution order#172277wconstab wants to merge 8 commits intogh/wconstab/493/basefrom
wconstab wants to merge 8 commits intogh/wconstab/493/basefrom
Conversation
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically significant. Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would have violated partial ordering semantics. [ghstack-poisoned]
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/172277
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ❌ 2 New FailuresAs of commit 6b1a933 with merge base d803917 ( NEW FAILURES - The following jobs have failed:
This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
This was referenced Jan 12, 2026
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically significant. Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would have violated partial ordering semantics. [ghstack-poisoned]
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically significant. Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would have violated partial ordering semantics. [ghstack-poisoned]
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically significant. Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would have violated partial ordering semantics. [ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced Jan 14, 2026
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically significant. 1. Ordering of Partial -> Replicate is numerically significant 2. we need to define one order and always use it Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would have violated partial ordering semantics. [ghstack-poisoned]
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically significant. 1. Ordering of Partial -> Replicate is numerically significant 2. we need to define one order and always use it Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would have violated partial ordering semantics. [ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced Jan 14, 2026
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically significant. 1. Ordering of Partial -> Replicate is numerically significant 2. we need to define one order and always use it Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would have violated partial ordering semantics. [ghstack-poisoned]
SergeyTyshkevich
pushed a commit
to SergeyTyshkevich/chart2
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 19, 2026
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically significant. Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would have violated partial ordering semantics. ghstack-source-id: 8b90e58 Pull Request resolved: pytorch/pytorch#172277
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically significant. 1. Ordering of Partial -> Replicate is numerically significant 2. we need to define one order and always use it Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would have violated partial ordering semantics. [ghstack-poisoned]
Contributor
Author
|
closing as replaced by #172609 |
suncapitalllc007-star
pushed a commit
to suncapitalllc007-star/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 25, 2026
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically significant. Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would have violated partial ordering semantics. ghstack-source-id: 9df4d64 Pull Request resolved: pytorch/pytorch#172277
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
Make an explicit statement in dtensor docs that defines the ordering of
partials as "left to right", explaining that ordering is semantically
significant.
Adds a test case and fixes bugs in redistribution planning which would
have violated partial ordering semantics.