-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 206
[Utils] Offloaded cache size #1714
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Kyle Sayers <[email protected]>
👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to llm-compressor. Please add the ready label when the PR is ready for review. Note: This is required to complete the testing suite, please only add the label once the PR is code complete and local testing has been performed. |
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.
Summary of Changes
Hello @kylesayrs, 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!
I've added a new utility to help debug memory usage of the offloaded cache. This new functionality provides a way to inspect the memory footprint of cached values, broken down by the device they reside on, making it easier to identify and manage memory consumption within the cache.
Highlights
- New
size()
method: Introduced asize()
method to theCache
class insrc/llmcompressor/pipelines/cache.py
to calculate the memory used by cached values. - Device-specific memory tracking: The
size()
method reports memory usage pertorch.device
, allowing for granular insights into where cached data resides. - Recursive memory calculation: Implemented a recursive helper function
_size_helper
to accurately sum up memory for complex nested data structures liketorch.Tensor
s, dataclasses, tuples, and dictionaries within the cache.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The 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 in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command>
or @gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
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 .gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
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 or fill out our survey to provide feedback.
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
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
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.
Code Review
This pull request adds a size()
method to IntermediatesCache
to calculate the memory usage of the cache, which is a helpful utility for debugging. The current recursive implementation has a couple of issues: it can fail with a RecursionError
on deeply nested data, and it doesn't correctly calculate the size of lists. I've provided a suggestion for an iterative implementation that is more robust and correctly handles lists, which should improve both correctness and reliability.
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.
looks good outside of gemini's recommendation
Purpose