Skip to content

api: Fix SparseFunction distributor setup#2739

Merged
mloubout merged 1 commit intomainfrom
decoup-sparse-perf
Sep 19, 2025
Merged

api: Fix SparseFunction distributor setup#2739
mloubout merged 1 commit intomainfrom
decoup-sparse-perf

Conversation

@mloubout
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@mloubout mloubout added the API api (symbolics, types, ...) label Sep 18, 2025
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 18, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 70.00000% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.95%. Comparing base (b949e89) to head (ab95dc6).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
devito/types/sparse.py 47.05% 3 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2739      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.96%   82.95%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         248      248              
  Lines       50133    50152      +19     
  Branches     4415     4417       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        41592    41606      +14     
- Misses       7787     7790       +3     
- Partials      754      756       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ
pytest-gpu-aomp-amdgpuX 68.77% <70.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
pytest-gpu-nvc-nvidiaX 69.30% <70.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@mloubout mloubout force-pushed the decoup-sparse-perf branch 6 times, most recently from ee89ea1 to ce3e1e1 Compare September 19, 2025 02:43

# Performance profiling

def _emit_args_profiling(self, tag=''):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

honestly I would aggregate everything inside _emit_apply_profiling. I think what you're doing here is very important so I'd try to get it "ideal" from the get go. How about something along these lines? I'd certainly find it a bit less verbose and easily extensible

Operator XXX ran in ....
Global performance ...
Global performance w/o setup
Excluded Python-level overheads: 2.2 s [1.5 s args pre-proc, 0.5 s args post-proc]

Either "Excluded" or "Additional" or perhaps just nothing...

Anyway, food for thought

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like it separate, it makes it easier to find/parse for the user and it's a python time vs the "c-land" time so i feel it's beeter as separate entry.

@mloubout mloubout force-pushed the decoup-sparse-perf branch 2 times, most recently from 404cabe to a18d135 Compare September 19, 2025 14:09
@mloubout mloubout merged commit 4111ee6 into main Sep 19, 2025
36 checks passed
@mloubout mloubout deleted the decoup-sparse-perf branch September 19, 2025 16:20
mloubout added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2025
api: Fix SparseFunction distributor setup
mloubout added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2025
api: Fix SparseFunction distributor setup
mloubout added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2025
api: Fix SparseFunction distributor setup
mloubout added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2025
api: Fix SparseFunction distributor setup
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

API api (symbolics, types, ...)

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants