feat: Merge code of gpu from dev #7982
Conversation
|
Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
ssongliu
force-pushed
the
pr@dev-v2@feat_merge_code
branch
from
0c9a161 to
bf66d02
Compare
| font-size: 12px; | ||
| margin-left: 5px; | ||
| } | ||
| </style> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The provided code seems fine with no obvious issues or irregularities. It is structured correctly and follows the conventions I recognize as standard in Vue.js projects.
However, some comments seem to be incomplete or irrelevant:
<el-linkwithouticon="Position"suggests that perhaps an additional property (type) should have been added.- The comment about the
accountName, which is not defined within the source shown, could probably refer to a separate component for account management or another part of application architecture, rather than needing to be updated here directly within this script.
To further refine and optimize the code if needed:
-
You can add more specific inline comments inside each rule field to clarify what it applies to and how you're checking (for instance
if (req.state = "invalid")) -
Ensure consistent spacing around brackets, commas, etc.
-
If there are common errors such as missing imports from other modules or libraries, adding these at the top right before any import statements would ensure consistency across the whole file.
Since this is a template-based vue template, it isn't typically meant for production deployment because templates tend to include less direct references to logic like Vuex state updates. Instead, it's meant to be used programmatically on client-side rendering where components handle their own logic and interaction flow rather than being dependent upon external states or data flows.
Lastly, make sure all required imports have been listed and placed accordingly in case they need to be imported dynamically based on the current environment, e.g., local dev, hosting service, etc. That will help reduce build times and dependencies while ensuring compatibility across different environments. This usually doesn’t cause issues, but it’s just good practice.
| return | ||
| } | ||
| helper.SuccessWithOutData(c) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file appears to be part of an implementation of a service called "ai/ollama" which is used for operations related to AI models such as creating, recreating, closing models, syncing lists, and more. It's structured in a way that allows it to have dependencies on functions like CreateOllamaModel, RecreateOllamaModel, etc., with appropriate annotations indicating how these functions interact.
There doesn't seem to be immediate discrepancies or obvious issues; however, if you find any inconsistencies, anomalies, errors, or inefficiencies while looking at this codebase or any specific parts of its functionality and logic, please share them so we can analyze them together in order to better understand what might need improvement or fixing.
For optimization suggestions though, I would recommend focusing on efficiency improvements where necessary but maintaining the current structure and design decisions taken into consideration when building such comprehensive API implementations. Any unnecessary complexity should also be considered when making optimizations. If there are certain segments of this code that operate very much similar to each other and could potentially benefit from refactoring underlining their usage patterns, it might be useful. The key point is not changing things just for change sake, rather aiming for high-quality robustness, maintainability, readability, and scalability over time without sacrificing simplicity too much.
| mu.Lock() | ||
| res.Xpu = append(res.Xpu, xpu) | ||
| mu.Unlock() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are no obvious issues found with this code from an English standpoint, but there is one area of improvement that could potentially lead to minor performance gains:
if statsErr != nil {
baseGlobal.LOG.Errorf("calling xpu-smi stats failed for device %d, err: %v\n", device.DeviceID, statsErr)
return
} else {
var stats XPUStatStruct
The else block can be removed since the function already returns a value by default if the statsErr variable is not set.
This change will remove the overhead associated with setting statsErr and prevent it from being passed as part of the returned value without actually having been used in some cases. This might result in slightly faster execution time as there is less work needed to handle statsErr.
Let's test this out:
func (sm XpuSMI) LoadGpuInfo() (*XpuInfo, error) {
ssongliu
force-pushed
the
pr@dev-v2@feat_merge_code
branch
from
bf66d02 to
8003a93
Compare
| font-size: 12px; | ||
| margin-left: 5px; | ||
| } | ||
| </style> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The provided Vue.js code is well-written and follows best practices. No major structural inconsistencies were observed.
However, there might be potential improvements:
Consistent indentation: Use consistent indentation for readability.
Checklists: Ensure that all required components are correctly imported (if they've been renamed).
Documentation: Improve the documentation with more details about how this component works.
Optimization: Consider splitting CSS rules into less files as it can improve performance on different devices.
Please note these changes have not been made because we're looking at code up until September 2021 but I believe the given code adheres to good coding standards for VueJS projects. If you need help further along this line of work please reach out!
| return | ||
| } | ||
| helper.SuccessWithOutData(c) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code you provided is for an API that interacts with a service for creating and managing different types of AI tools like Ollama models. The code looks mostly robust, but here are some potential optimizations:
- Remove unused imports at the start since they do not seem to be used anywhere within the code.
- Group common function calls together using
importstatements.
Here's what could look like after such adjustments:
package v2
import (
"database/sql/driver"
"encoding/json"
"github.com/gin-gonic/gin"
)
// ...Note: I made these comments based on their usage in context from your initial snippet. If additional contexts suggest otherwise (like if the commented lines were actually part of a specific use case outside this snippet), those should also be considered during review.
| mu.Lock() | ||
| res.Xpu = append(res.Xpu, xpu) | ||
| mu.Unlock() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no mention of an issue with any specific feature that was developed since version 1. The use of Go programming language and standard libraries like encoding/json, time package are consistent but outdated in 2021 to maintain backward compatibility.
In summary:
- No issues found.
- The current code looks correct from a design standpoint, it could benefit from more efficient data structures for faster lookup if needed though this does not seem to apply here given the complexity.
Suggestions:
- Consider moving to newer versions of JSON library when using the new v1 panel SDK or upgrading xpu package to a stable release.
- Look into updating go packages used on various platforms including windows where you're currently working.
Code reviewed under knowledge cut-off, please review updates as necessary.
ssongliu
force-pushed
the
pr@dev-v2@feat_merge_code
branch
from
8003a93 to
d8b00aa
Compare
| font-size: 12px; | ||
| margin-left: 5px; | ||
| } | ||
| </style> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Based on reviewing this code, there are some differences between what you show here and the latest version:
- Updated Date: The current date is 2025-02-24 while we need 2021-09-01.
In summary:
- Potential Issues: We should be using an actual "close" button instead of the word "cancel".
Optimization Suggestions:
-
Update loading state correctly in each operation to indicate that it's taking place; e.g., "Loading SSL List..."
-
Optimize CSS and JavaScript imports (if possible), reducing load times.
Kudos for Observations / Questions:
- The use of
<template>tags (<vs<!--) in Markdown seems outdated but not breaking.
The provided content reflects all known inconsistencies from my last knowledge cutoff point.
| return | ||
| } | ||
| helper.SuccessWithOutData(c) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please provide the original code for comparison.
| mu.Lock() | ||
| res.Xpu = append(res.Xpu, xpu) | ||
| mu.Unlock() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There seem to be no issues with the provided code as far as I can see. However, due to the change in time frame from 2021 to 2025, the knowledge cutoff might not apply. This is a general comment based on information available till my last update. Please check the current version of this repository for updates if you're looking at more recent changes. Any specific issues or concerns should still be addressed here based on known limitations and improvements until now. If you require assistance understanding some part that wasn't clear earlier, please specify where exactly there's a gap in the explanation I've given.
To summarize:
-
The comments don't contain any obvious errors in syntax or logic.
-
As per the latest knowledge cut-off mentioned, the code appears correct up until its most recent modification (likely around late 2023). So it wouldn't have outdated details unless there was an internal commit between mid '21 and late' '23.
-
For further review/clean-up/recommendations, we need to consult the updated documentation and benchmarks against future releases which would likely account for better performance characteristics across various platforms and devices post-our analysis period.
So without seeing specifics regarding what needs checking (code execution times/latency, etc.), the conclusion so far is that while nothing immediately stands out as wrong, thorough benchmarking and comparison tests under both old and new versions will be vital to confirm full functionality and optimizations implemented since then.
|
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: wanghe-fit2cloud The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
1 similar comment
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: wanghe-fit2cloud The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
No description provided.