Skip to content

docs: update README.md - #843

Merged
zhyncs merged 1 commit into
sgl-project:mainfrom
eltociear:patch-4
Jul 31, 2024
Merged

zhyncs merged 1 commit into
sgl-project:mainfrom
eltociear:patch-4

Conversation

@eltociear

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Motivation

fixed typo.

Modification

Repalce -> Replace

Checklist

  1. Ensure pre-commit pre-commit run --all-files or other linting tools are used to fix potential lint issues.
  2. Confirm that modifications are covered by complete unit tests. If not, please add more unit tests for correctness.
  3. Modify documentation as needed, such as docstrings or example tutorials.

Repalce -> Replace
@zhyncs
zhyncs merged commit 7d5ed7c into sgl-project:main Jul 31, 2024
timethink pushed a commit to timethink/sglang that referenced this pull request Mar 9, 2025
efschu pushed a commit to efschu/htsglang that referenced this pull request Aug 27, 2026
…ker per abort

The abort path is the leading candidate for the rank-local slot divergence
behind the PP output-ring wedges, and the code says why itself. `abort_request`
carries sgl-project#631 pin 4 verbatim: "an abort applied on one rank before its peers
DIVERGES THE REPLICATED LIVE SET mid-flip" -- and the guard that prevents it is
conditional, `if window is not None and window.active`. The
`phase_flip_abort_window` is activated only on arming and drained after the
cutover, so OUTSIDE an armed flip `_abort_request_now` runs directly, on
whichever rank processes it, in whichever pass it lands. The hazard is
recognised, named, and closed only inside the flip window.

THE CHECK COULD NOT BE MADE, WHICH IS THE POINT OF THIS COMMIT. Grepping the
three wedge logs for an abort near the onset returns nothing -- and that
nothing is worthless. Every marker inside `_abort_request_now` is
`logger.debug` and the boots run `log_level='info'`: measured, ZERO DEBUG
lines in boot_accept2e0827_0827_0454, boot_accept2e0827b6_0827_0613 and
boot_802f_staged1_0822_1716. So "no abort before the wedge" is a LOGGING GAP,
not a finding. This is the marker-absence trap sgl-project#843 hit on this same path
("the only refusal marker was a logger.debug on a boot running
log_level='info', so it could never appear"), and reporting the null as
evidence would have been the second instance.

ONE SUMMARY LINE, not the per-request ones. `abort_all` can name the whole
live set, so promoting those would trade a blind spot for a flood -- the sgl-project#801
void-streak shape in reverse. This says an abort happened, when, whether the
flip window deferred it, and what it targeted, which is everything the
discriminator needs to place it against a wedge onset. `deferred` is now read
once into a local and used for both the log and the branch, so the line cannot
disagree with the path taken.

WHAT THE SAME SWEEP DID FIND, recorded because it is real and does NOT support
the abort hypothesis:

* Boot 1's wedge onset (last progress 05:08:59) is preceded by EIGHT SECONDS
  by `sgl-project#905 HOST-POOL DOUBLE-FREE about to raise ... 8192 of 8192 index(es) are
  in range but not allocated, span [3530, 14937]` on all three ranks, and the
  `[sgl-project#703 flip-writeback]` drain fails with it. Boot-1-specific: zero such
  lines in boot 6 and zero in 1712. The magnitude is the same 8192 the sgl-project#927
  hit prefix carries, on the HOST pool rather than the device one, which is
  worth linking rather than filing twice.
* Specimen 1712 shows a rank-local admission-congruence retraction (`sgl-project#797
  PP-ADMISSION pass voided on rank 1 ... told=147456 local=139264`) -- that is
  the in-loop site, already covered by the void relay whose default sgl-project#801
  widened.
* So the three wedges do NOT share one proximate cause in these logs, and the
  single-class assumption should not be carried further without evidence.

NO BEHAVIOUR CHANGE. The branch is byte-identical; only the marker is new.

Import smoke + wiring check green (the marker precedes both branches, and the
branch reads the same `deferred` the line printed).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants