Skip to content

Conversation

@Echo-Nie
Copy link
Contributor

@Echo-Nie Echo-Nie commented Aug 30, 2025

Objective

  • Hit rate calculation
  • Cache eviction
  • GPU ↔ CPU fallback/swap

Result

  • Task 1 (first request): Required 2 blocks, fully allocated on GPU. Hit Rate = 0.00 → expected for first allocation.
  • Task 2 (exceeds GPU capacity): Required 3 blocks: 2 blocks hit on GPU, 1 block allocated on CPU (fallback). Hit Rate = 0.67 → confirms GPU+CPU cooperative allocation works.
  • Task 1 (second request): Previously allocated GPU blocks were fully hit. Hit Rate = 1.00 → confirms cache reuse works as expected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 1 test in 0.002s

OK

There are still some bugs being fixed at the moment, so a review is not needed for now.

@paddle-bot
Copy link

paddle-bot bot commented Aug 30, 2025

Thanks for your contribution!

@paddle-bot paddle-bot bot added the contributor External developers label Aug 30, 2025
@Echo-Nie
Copy link
Contributor Author

Echo-Nie commented Sep 1, 2025

Saving to: ‘diff_coverage.json’

     0K .                                                     100%  955M=0s

2025-08-30 23:53:32 (955 MB/s) - ‘diff_coverage.json’ saved [1673/1673]

Failed test cases:
{"report_name": "XML", "diff_name": "origin/main...HEAD, staged and unstaged changes", "src_stats": {"fastdeploy/cache_manager/test_prefix_cache.py": {"percent_covered": 0.0, "violation_lines": [15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53, 54, 55, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 140, 141], "covered_lines": [], "violations": [[15, null], [17, null], [19, null], [22, null], [25, null], [26, null], [27, null], [28, null], [29, null], [30, null], [31, null], [34, null], [37, null], [38, null], [39, null], [42, null], [45, null], [46, null], [47, null], [50, null], [53, null], [54, null], [55, null], [58, null], [61, null], [63, null], [64, null], [65, null], [67, null], [69, null], [71, null], [73, null], [74, null], [76, null], [78, null], [79, null], [80, null], [81, null], [82, null], [83, null], [84, null], [85, null], [86, null], [87, null], [88, null], [89, null], [90, null], [91, null], [92, null], [93, null], [95, null], [97, null], [99, null], [100, null], [102, null], [103, null], [105, null], [106, null], [108, null], [110, null], [111, null], [112, null], [114, null], [115, null], [116, null], [117, null], [120, null], [121, null], [122, null], [124, null], [126, null], [128, null], [129, null], [131, null], [132, null], [134, null], [135, null], [137, null], [140, null], [141, null]]}}, "total_num_lines": 80, "total_num_violations": 80, "total_percent_covered": 0, "num_changed_lines": 141}
Error: Process completed with exit code 9.

ans: 放错目录了...导致0覆盖

@luotao1
Copy link
Collaborator

luotao1 commented Sep 15, 2025

There are still some bugs being fixed at the moment, so a review is not needed for now.

现在如何了?

@Echo-Nie
Copy link
Contributor Author

There are still some bugs being fixed at the moment, so a review is not needed for now.

现在如何了?

I misunderstood the meaning, so this is an invalid PR and it is closed.

@Echo-Nie Echo-Nie closed this Sep 16, 2025
@Echo-Nie Echo-Nie deleted the pre_cache branch October 17, 2025 06:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants