Switch to pybind11 style registration function API.#36258
Closed
ezyang wants to merge 25 commits intogh/ezyang/710/basefrom
Closed
Switch to pybind11 style registration function API.#36258ezyang wants to merge 25 commits intogh/ezyang/710/basefrom
ezyang wants to merge 25 commits intogh/ezyang/710/basefrom
Conversation
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
[ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced Apr 8, 2020
💊 Build failures summary and remediationsAs of commit a08a85c (more details on the Dr. CI page):
XLA failureJob pytorch_xla_linux_bionic_py3_6_clang9_build is failing. Please create an issue with title prefixed by Extra GitHub checks
This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI (expand for details).Follow this link to opt-out of these comments for your Pull Requests.Please report bugs/suggestions on the GitHub issue tracker. This comment has been revised 123 times. |
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
[ghstack-poisoned]
ezyang
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2020
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
ghstack-source-id: 9faa93e
Pull Request resolved: #36258
This was referenced Apr 8, 2020
Closed
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
[ghstack-poisoned]
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
[ghstack-poisoned]
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Differential Revision: [D20929257](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D20929257)
[ghstack-poisoned]
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Differential Revision: [D20929257](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D20929257)
[ghstack-poisoned]
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Differential Revision: [D20929257](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D20929257)
[ghstack-poisoned]
bhosmer
approved these changes
Apr 9, 2020
| #define KERNEL(FUNC, REGISTER_NAME, SIGNATURE, POLICY) \ | ||
| .impl(REGISTER_NAME, DispatchKey::Autocast, \ | ||
| &WrapFunction<CastPolicy::POLICY, SIGNATURE, SIGNATURE, &FUNC>::type::call) | ||
| m.impl(REGISTER_NAME, \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Another upside to moving away from chaining: #defines are less of a bank shot.
| def set_declaration_defaults(declaration): | ||
| if 'schema_string' not in declaration: | ||
| # This happens for legacy TH bindings like | ||
| # _thnn_conv_depthwise2d_backward |
| TORCH_CHECK(f.dispatch_key_, "Fallback for catch all function not supported"); | ||
| registrars_.emplace_back(Dispatcher::singleton().registerFallback(*f.dispatch_key_, std::move(f.func_))); | ||
| Library& Library::_fallback(CppFunction&& f) & { | ||
| TORCH_CHECK(!ns_, "Cannot define a fallback in TORCH_LIBRARY (it would affect operators outside of your library); did you mean to use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL instead"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I found the "did you mean" part kind of confusing - it sounded like maybe there was a scoped version of fallback you could somehow specify using TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL.
I'm not sure how to rephrase it to more clearly connote "maybe you don't reallllly want a fallback", but absent a rephrasing maybe it's best to leave it off entirely?
| // | ||
| // auto register = torch::import() | ||
| // | ||
| // // Specify a namespace. This namespace must not be used by any |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
bikeshed: "...and populate it with all its operator definitions. (Implementations can be added here or separately.)"
| // and TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL can define operators and override implementations | ||
| // at certain backends. | ||
| // | ||
| // Conventionally, you get access to it using those two macros: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Super nit: I was looking for an example of the second macro because of the ":"
| Module&& impl_UNBOXED(const char* name, Dispatch&& key, Func* raw_f) && { | ||
| impl_UNBOXED(name, std::forward<Dispatch>(key), raw_f); | ||
| return std::move(*this); | ||
| template <typename Func> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Super duper nit: s/these overloads/this overload/ in the comment above
|
|
||
| namespace { | ||
| auto registerer = torch::import() | ||
| TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the invariant that this is a complete declaration of the library is a big improvement in quickly grokking what you're looking at.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that the invariant is not enforced yet
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Differential Revision: [D20929257](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D20929257)
[ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced Apr 10, 2020
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Differential Revision: [D20929257](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D20929257)
[ghstack-poisoned]
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Differential Revision: [D20929257](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D20929257)
[ghstack-poisoned]
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Differential Revision: [D20929257](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D20929257)
[ghstack-poisoned]
ezyang
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 15, 2020
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
ghstack-source-id: 50cf477
Pull Request resolved: #36258
ezyang
added a commit
to pytorch/xla
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 15, 2020
Companion to pytorch/pytorch#36258 Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
…tyle registration function API."
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Differential Revision: [D20929257](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D20929257)
[ghstack-poisoned]
ezyang
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2020
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
ghstack-source-id: 8ce9f40
Pull Request resolved: #36258
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
Differential Revision: [D20929257](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D20929257)
[ghstack-poisoned]
ezyang
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2020
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
- It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to
subtle ODR bugs.
- It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
- It's not like pybind11.
- There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
- The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
```
TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) {
m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor");
...
}
```
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com>
ghstack-source-id: a181df8
Pull Request resolved: #36258
ezyang
added a commit
to pytorch/xla
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2020
* Update XLA registrations to pybind11 style. Companion to pytorch/pytorch#36258 Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com> * Remove namespace too Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com> * Delete .torch_pin
Contributor
facebook-github-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2020
Summary: Adresses #36925 We have a new operator registration API introduced in #36258, and we need to port all use sites of the old registration API to use it. Pull Request resolved: #37008 Differential Revision: D21160557 Pulled By: jessebrizzi fbshipit-source-id: 6bc0d57c40229cc7a477cde371c08479d4a4fe4f
facebook-github-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 13, 2020
…tor registration API (#38014) Summary: Port register_distributed_ops.cpp with the new registration API introduced in #36258. resolve #37579 Signed-off-by: Xiong Wei <xiongw.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Pull Request resolved: #38014 Differential Revision: D21502643 Pulled By: ezyang fbshipit-source-id: e1749d788b5c0f2a903ffac2f0c94929d6a8ad72
laurentdupin
pushed a commit
to laurentdupin/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2026
…ytorch#36607) Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#36607 PR pytorch#36258 and subsequent PRs in the stack switch c10 registrations to the new pybind11 style registration API. One notable difference from old c10 registration API is that, operator's namespace is no longer in op schema string, e.g. "aten::" will be factored out from "aten::conv", "aten::emtpy" and etc. The namespace string will be declared at the beginning of registrations with TORCH_LIBRARY / TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL macro. A rather simple fix is to extract namespace string from the name of enclosing function of registrations, as the TORCH_LIBRARY macro will always create an init function (per namespace) by appending namespace string to a common prefix. Another side effect of the API change is that it adds some debug string constants to the registration API, and because of factoring out the namespace part from op name, there is no longer an effect way to differentiate between real op name and debug strings. A simple workaround is that we only keep the first string constant it encounters while BFSing the LLVM IR - the real op name is directly passed into the registration call while the debug string is indirectly passed via CppFunction. These new assumptions might be broken by future changes but it's so simple to implement to unblock the API work. Test Plan: Imported from OSS Differential Revision: D21026008 Pulled By: ljk53 fbshipit-source-id: c8c171d23aaba6d6b7985d342e8797525126a713
laurentdupin
pushed a commit
to laurentdupin/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2026
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#36258 Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to this API: - It's easy to forget the 'static' qualifier in front, leading to subtle ODR bugs. - It is not compatible with torchbind class_ definitions, as these need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class. - It's not like pybind11. - There's no way to conveniently get the file and line number of the registration, as there is no macro point in the API. - The old API doesn't really encourage people to put all of their definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you were writing implementations for. The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro: you write: ``` TORCH_LIBRARY(aten, m) { m.def("aten::add(Tensor self, Tensor other) -> Tensor"); ... } ``` in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory, and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY the same library name twice. If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator (e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting registrations for implementations at the implementation site), you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do as many of these as you want for a backend. This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer. Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@fb.com> Test Plan: Imported from OSS Differential Revision: D20929257 Pulled By: ezyang fbshipit-source-id: ba04d78492e8c93ae7190165fb936f6872896ada
laurentdupin
pushed a commit
to laurentdupin/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2026
…h#37008) Summary: Adresses pytorch#36925 We have a new operator registration API introduced in pytorch#36258, and we need to port all use sites of the old registration API to use it. Pull Request resolved: pytorch#37008 Differential Revision: D21160557 Pulled By: jessebrizzi fbshipit-source-id: 6bc0d57c40229cc7a477cde371c08479d4a4fe4f
laurentdupin
pushed a commit
to laurentdupin/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2026
…tor registration API (pytorch#38014) Summary: Port register_distributed_ops.cpp with the new registration API introduced in pytorch#36258. resolve pytorch#37579 Signed-off-by: Xiong Wei <xiongw.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Pull Request resolved: pytorch#38014 Differential Revision: D21502643 Pulled By: ezyang fbshipit-source-id: e1749d788b5c0f2a903ffac2f0c94929d6a8ad72
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
6 participants
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:
Previous we had a && chaining style API. There are some downsides to
this API:
subtle ODR bugs.
need multiple levels of chaining. So in practice people end
up having to define multiple static initializers, one per class.
the registration, as there is no macro point in the API.
definitions for a library in one place, and to give a custom
namespace for it. Similarly, the old API wasn't very DRY, because
you had to keep repeating the namespace/dispatch key you
were writing implementations for.
The new API is modeled exactly off of the PYBIND11_MODULE macro:
you write:
in a non-chaining fashion, and under the hood the macro expands to
define a function, and define a static initializer that allocates
c10::Library (previously called c10::Module, but we renamed it
to avoid confusion with the existing NN module concept), passes
it to your function, and then retains it for the rest of the lifetime
of the program. Specification of the namespace is mandatory,
and in later commit I plan to make it a hard error to TORCH_LIBRARY
the same library name twice.
If you are specifying an implementation for an existing operator
(e.g., you're the XLA backend, or even if you're just putting
registrations for implementations at the implementation site),
you should use TORCH_LIBRARY_IMPL, which instead takes a backend
argument (instead of namespace) and can be used to specify an
implementation for a backend. Unlike TORCH_LIBRARY, you can do
as many of these as you want for a backend.
This needs updates to the mobile code analyzer.
Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang ezyang@fb.com
Differential Revision: D20929257