-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
Avoid repetitive creation of fp4/fp8 native-custom-op domains for NvTensorRtRtx EP #27192
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
vishalpandya1990
wants to merge
4
commits into
microsoft:main
Choose a base branch
from
vishalpandya1990:vipandya/debug_1
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+38
−22
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e31608a
avoid repetitive creation fp4 native-custom-op domains
vishalpandya1990 d68be0e
nit
vishalpandya1990 872f539
double delete comment update and static objs comment add
vishalpandya1990 3506183
avoid new variable for native-ops check
vishalpandya1990 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would this indicate a different problem of someone calling to destroy objects that are in-use? Should we fix that bug?
Another question, static objects would be destroyed just prior to this DLL being unloaded. We want to make sure that the entities being destroyed do not refer to another DLL that could potentially be unloaded first.
It is for the reason people usually introduce a special API to have control of the process and to destroy things at a safe time and not to delegate it to a OS dependent specifics when shared objects are unloaded and the order of static destruction.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this is a potential use-after-free scenario. I think it should get mitigated with current change.
I see your point. Usually, we could have ref-counted concerned objects for handling this (or, make them part of EP instance, or session to avoid shared usage). However, I believe no cross-DLL memory is actually accessed during destruction today.
I think it will be better to decouple current change about avoid-repetition handling with any potential design changes on this part. Please let me know if this sounds okay to you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here my take on this. There is not a firmly defined policy here on handling these objects. I think we need to make a choice here:
Until that happens, this is going to be never-ending chasing of the tail with different OS dependent issues.