[bugfix][npugraph_ex]duplicate pattern issue#6513
[bugfix][npugraph_ex]duplicate pattern issue#6513wangxiyuan merged 2 commits intovllm-project:mainfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com>
Summary of ChangesHello @ChenCangtao, 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 resolves an issue where graph fusion patterns were being redundantly registered, leading to errors, especially when multiple compilation passes or draft models were active. By implementing a centralized and guarded registration mechanism, the system now ensures that each fusion pattern is registered only once, improving stability and preventing runtime exceptions related to duplicate pattern definitions in the graph compilation process. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe 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 by creating a comment using either
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 Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist 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. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. 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
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a mechanism to prevent duplicate registration of fusion passes, which is a good approach to solve the described problem. The changes correctly apply a new helper function across several files. However, the implementation of the core helper function check_and_register_fusion_pass contains a critical typo that makes the fix ineffective. I've provided a comment with a suggested fix for this issue.
| def check_and_register_fusion_pass(pattern_class: type, **kwargs): | ||
| global _resgister_patterns | ||
| eps = kwargs.get("eps", 1e-6) | ||
| pattern_key = str(pattern_class.__name__) + str(eps) | ||
| if pattern_key in _resgister_patterns: | ||
| return | ||
|
|
||
| pattern = pattern_class(**kwargs) | ||
| try: | ||
| pattern.register() | ||
| _register_patterns.add(pattern_key) | ||
| except RuntimeError as e: | ||
| if "Duplicate pattern" in str(e): | ||
| logger.warning(f"Pattern {pattern_class.__name__} eps {eps} has been registered") | ||
| _register_patterns.add(pattern_key) | ||
| else: | ||
| raise e |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a typo in the global variable name _resgister_patterns on lines 61 and 64. It should be _register_patterns. This typo causes the check for already registered patterns to always fail because it refers to a different, empty set. This defeats the purpose of this function and will not prevent duplicate registration errors. This is a critical bug.
| def check_and_register_fusion_pass(pattern_class: type, **kwargs): | |
| global _resgister_patterns | |
| eps = kwargs.get("eps", 1e-6) | |
| pattern_key = str(pattern_class.__name__) + str(eps) | |
| if pattern_key in _resgister_patterns: | |
| return | |
| pattern = pattern_class(**kwargs) | |
| try: | |
| pattern.register() | |
| _register_patterns.add(pattern_key) | |
| except RuntimeError as e: | |
| if "Duplicate pattern" in str(e): | |
| logger.warning(f"Pattern {pattern_class.__name__} eps {eps} has been registered") | |
| _register_patterns.add(pattern_key) | |
| else: | |
| raise e | |
| def check_and_register_fusion_pass(pattern_class: type, **kwargs): | |
| global _register_patterns | |
| eps = kwargs.get("eps", 1e-6) | |
| pattern_key = str(pattern_class.__name__) + str(eps) | |
| if pattern_key in _register_patterns: | |
| return | |
| pattern = pattern_class(**kwargs) | |
| try: | |
| pattern.register() | |
| _register_patterns.add(pattern_key) | |
| except RuntimeError as e: | |
| if "Duplicate pattern" in str(e): | |
| logger.warning(f"Pattern {pattern_class.__name__} eps {eps} has been registered") | |
| _register_patterns.add(pattern_key) | |
| else: | |
| raise e |
|
👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM Ascend project. The following points will speed up your PR merge:
If CI fails, you can run linting and testing checks locally according Contributing and Testing. |
Signed-off-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com>
…to qwen3next_rebase * 'main' of https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm-ascend: (59 commits) [Feat.]: 310p support MOE models (vllm-project#6530) [Doc] backport 0.13.0 release note (vllm-project#6584) [CI] Update UT CANN version to 8.5.0 for main branch (vllm-project#6564) [CI] Change A2 runner (vllm-project#6557) [Bugfix] Fix the incorrect use of the output parameter in _forward_fia_slidingwindow (vllm-project#6469) [main2main] upgrade vllm main 0202 (vllm-project#6560) [CI][npugraph_ex]Fix npugraph ex e2e test (vllm-project#6553) [Feature]KV pool supports sparse attention (vllm-project#6339) [bugfix]Fix accuracy issue in PCP/DCP with speculative decoding (vllm-project#6491) perf: adaptive block size selection in linear_persistent kernel (vllm-project#6537) [ModelRunner][Fix] Pads query_start_loc to satisfy FIA/TND constraint (vllm-project#6475) [Bugfix]Fix of Pooling Code and Update of Pooling Usage Guide (vllm-project#6126) [Fusion] Add rmsnorm dynamic quant fusion pass (vllm-project#6274) [Bugfix] Synchronize only the current stream to avoid device sync (vllm-project#6432) [CI] Add long and short prompt tests for DeepSeek-V3.2 (vllm-project#6499) [Refactor] MLP weight prefetch to consistency with MoE Model's prefetching in terms of code and usage (vllm-project#6442) [bugfix][npugraph_ex]duplicate pattern issue (vllm-project#6513) [bugfix][npugraph_ex]add the extra check for allreduce rmsnorm fusion pass (vllm-project#6430) [Quant] GLM4.7-Flash Support W8A8 (vllm-project#6492) [Nightly][BugFix] Remove kv_cache nz test case for test_mla_preprocess_nq.py (vllm-project#6505) ...
### What this PR does / why we need it? When the draft model also uses vllmbackend for graph compilation, the fusion pass registration occurs again, resulting in errors due to duplicate patterns. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? ### How was this patch tested? - vLLM version: v0.15.0 - vLLM main: https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/commit/v0.15.0 --------- Signed-off-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com> Co-authored-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: momochenchuw <chenchuw@huawei.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it? When the draft model also uses vllmbackend for graph compilation, the fusion pass registration occurs again, resulting in errors due to duplicate patterns. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? ### How was this patch tested? - vLLM version: v0.15.0 - vLLM main: https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/commit/v0.15.0 --------- Signed-off-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com> Co-authored-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: zrj026 <zhangrunjiang026@gmail.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it? When the draft model also uses vllmbackend for graph compilation, the fusion pass registration occurs again, resulting in errors due to duplicate patterns. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? ### How was this patch tested? - vLLM version: v0.15.0 - vLLM main: https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/commit/v0.15.0 --------- Signed-off-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com> Co-authored-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it? When the draft model also uses vllmbackend for graph compilation, the fusion pass registration occurs again, resulting in errors due to duplicate patterns. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? ### How was this patch tested? - vLLM version: v0.15.0 - vLLM main: https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/commit/v0.15.0 --------- Signed-off-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com> Co-authored-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: zrj026 <zhangrunjiang026@gmail.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it? When the draft model also uses vllmbackend for graph compilation, the fusion pass registration occurs again, resulting in errors due to duplicate patterns. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? ### How was this patch tested? - vLLM version: v0.15.0 - vLLM main: https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/commit/v0.15.0 --------- Signed-off-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com> Co-authored-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it? When the draft model also uses vllmbackend for graph compilation, the fusion pass registration occurs again, resulting in errors due to duplicate patterns. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? ### How was this patch tested? - vLLM version: v0.15.0 - vLLM main: https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/commit/v0.15.0 --------- Signed-off-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com> Co-authored-by: chencangtao <chencangtao@huawei.com>
What this PR does / why we need it?
When the draft model also uses vllmbackend for graph compilation, the fusion pass registration occurs again, resulting in errors due to duplicate patterns.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
How was this patch tested?