Skip to content

Conversation

shanjiaz
Copy link
Collaborator

SUMMARY:
This test was skipped and when run, was giving the can't copy out of meta tensor error. This is because the model is missing lm_head and embed_token layers and therefore only loaded to meta device. Switching to our model to avoid this issue.

TEST PLAN:
Tested locally and passed.

Signed-off-by: shanjiaz <[email protected]>
Copy link

👋 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.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a 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 @shanjiaz, 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!

This pull request addresses a critical issue preventing a test from running by updating the model used within the test suite. The change ensures that the test can execute correctly, resolving a problem where the previous model's incomplete structure led to loading errors.

Highlights

  • Test Model Update: Replaced the "Xenova/llama2.c-stories110M" model with "nm-testing/llama2.c-stories15M" in "tests/llmcompressor/recipe/test_recipe_parsing.py".
  • Error Resolution: This change resolves a "can't copy out of meta tensor" error caused by the previous model lacking necessary layers (lm_head and embed_token), which prevented it from being fully loaded.
  • Test Enablement: The updated model allows a previously skipped test to now run and pass successfully.
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. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

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

  1. 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.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a 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 resolves an issue with a failing test by swapping out a problematic model for one that is better suited for the test environment. The change from Xenova/llama2.c-stories110M to nm-testing/llama2.c-stories15M is well-justified in the description, as the new model is functional and smaller, which should lead to more reliable and faster test execution. The change is straightforward and correct.

Copy link
Collaborator

@brian-dellabetta brian-dellabetta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants