Bug/369 reduce op empty tensor #443
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
… with a neutral tensor according to kwarg 'neutral'
…gmin(), max(), min().
|
@TheSlimvReal I know it's not building and I haven't figured out why yet. It's not a complete PR (see issue #444) but it should already allow you to do some tests, if you have time. It's not urgent. Happy holidays! |
|
This needs more work, I'll close it for now and reopen later. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Addresses #369
I'm introducing a kwarg
neutralfor operations.__reduce_op().neutralmust be set to a torch factory function, it allows __reduce_op() to create a neutral local tensor in the (rare) occurrency in which a distributed reduction operation cannot proceed because one of the processes is left with no data. See #369Type of change
Select relevant options.
Are all split configurations tested and accounted for?
Does this change require a documentation update outside of the changes proposed?
Does this change modify the behaviour of other functions?
Are there code practices which require justification?