compiler: Fix issue #2235 by georgebisbas · Pull Request #2237 · devitocodes/devito

georgebisbas · 2023-10-13T17:21:05Z

No description provided.

codecov · 2023-10-13T17:29:38Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 82.92683% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 87.31%. Comparing base (caaac39) to head (d38e59b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
devito/types/dense.py	33.33%	6 Missing ⚠️
devito/deprecations.py	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2237      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   87.30%   87.31%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         238      238              
  Lines       46001    46022      +21     
  Branches     4075     4080       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits        40161    40184      +23     
+ Misses       5151     5150       -1     
+ Partials      689      688       -1

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

FabioLuporini · 2023-10-16T08:13:15Z

        intervals = intervals.zero(set(intervals.dimensions) - oobs)

+        # Intersect with intervals from buffered dimensions. Unions of
+        # buffered dimension intervals may result in shrinking time size


"shrinking" feels odd here, since after all time_M will get a larger default

by shrinking here probably you mean that perhaps [0,1] becomes [0,0]

The shrinking is introduced line 298, wouldn't it be cleaner to fix it there with slightly more checks

maybe, not sure, haven't thought about this

part of the exercise, I guess

mloubout · 2023-10-16T11:52:21Z

Also, potentially related, thos tests (and opertor)

devito/tests/test_gpu_common.py

Line 563 in b6f7308

op.apply(time_m=time_m, time_M=nt-2)

Should be valid for time_M=nt-1 but errors due to "OOB"

georgebisbas · 2023-11-03T16:54:20Z

                from devito.symbolics import normalize_args
                upper = interval.upper.subs(normalize_args(args))
-            if args[self.max_name] + upper >= size:
+            if args[self.max_name] + upper > size:


This change seems to be able to unlock this limitation, which is a good thing right?

georgebisbas · 2023-11-03T16:58:06Z

+        # the higher upper bound available in the involved parts
+        for f, v in parts.items():
+            try:
+                intervals = intervals.ceil(v[f.time_dim])


Any ideas on how to avoid this are welcome

review-notebook-app · 2023-11-08T18:09:16Z

Check out this pull request on

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

Powered by ReviewNB

FabioLuporini · 2023-11-20T08:31:19Z

    def zero(self):
        return Interval(self.dim, 0, 0, self.stamp)

+    def ceil(self, o):


I would turn the API into ceil(self, v) where v is just an integer. It doesn't make much sense to me to "ceil" based on an Interval

FabioLuporini · 2023-11-20T08:32:09Z

+        for f, v in parts.items():
+            for i in v:
+                if i.dim in oobs:
+                    intervals = intervals.ceil(v[i.dim])


as per my comment below, probably this should be i.upper ?

FabioLuporini · 2023-11-20T08:33:10Z

        intervals = intervals.promote(lambda d: not d.is_Sub)
        intervals = intervals.zero(set(intervals.dimensions) - oobs)

+        # Upper bound of intervals including dimensions classified for


This comment doesn't sound too clear. I think shorter + tiny example might help?

perhaps this is just me nitpicking...

FabioLuporini · 2023-11-20T08:33:34Z


+        # Upper bound of intervals including dimensions classified for
+        # shifting should retain the "oobs" upper bound
+        for f, v in parts.items():


for v in parts.values():

FabioLuporini · 2023-11-20T08:35:00Z

     "output_type": "stream",
     "text": [
-      "OOB detected due to time_M=2\n"
+      "OOB detected due to time_M=3\n"


I haven't looked at the example code yet, but is this sane?

IOW -- was there an issue with the prior implementation?

FabioLuporini · 2023-11-24T13:24:53Z

        return Interval(self.dim, 0, 0, self.stamp)

+    def min_upper(self, v=0):
+        return Interval(self.dim, self.lower, v, self.stamp)


this implementation doesn't really reflect the method name....

it looks like a jump in the class API, given that all other methos are more generic, see zero, flip, lift, etc

maybe use sth like "ceil" ?

To add, should all of these properties be cached? They all build Interval objects, rather than simply returning a private variable

I do not know, @FabioLuporini , @mloubout ?

this one in particular isn't a property, it's a method

So this is resolved I guess

georgebisbas

@FabioLuporini just a gentle reminder for this

FabioLuporini · 2024-01-19T10:19:53Z

+                # interval reconstruction
+                if i.dim in oobs and i.dim in f.dimensions:
+                    ii = intervals[i.dim].intersection(v[i.dim])
+                    intervals = intervals.set_upper(i.dim, ii.upper)


question. After this, is it true that intervals[i.dim] == ii ?

There are several tests that have different lower bounds that should not be affected.
We only touch the upper bound here!

Such tests are e.g.

TestConditionalDimension::test_sparse_time_function test_topofusion_w_subdims_conddims test_fission_for_parallelism

georgebisbas

So I know, it may be bit hard to remember where we have been here, but trying to refresh it.

georgebisbas · 2024-05-09T15:10:42Z

+                # interval reconstruction
+                if i.dim in oobs and i.dim in f.dimensions:
+                    ii = intervals[i.dim].intersection(v[i.dim])
+                    intervals = intervals.set_upper(i.dim, ii.upper)


There are several tests that have different lower bounds that should not be affected.
We only touch the upper bound here!

Such tests are e.g.

TestConditionalDimension::test_sparse_time_function test_topofusion_w_subdims_conddims test_fission_for_parallelism

georgebisbas · 2024-05-09T15:16:46Z

        return Interval(self.dim, 0, 0, self.stamp)

+    def min_upper(self, v=0):
+        return Interval(self.dim, self.lower, v, self.stamp)


maybe use sth like "ceil" ?

georgebisbas · 2024-11-15T11:51:44Z

I had honestly forgotten about this, please re-review when available

georgebisbas · 2024-11-15T16:09:33Z

I am having a problem rebasing this due to:

    def test_function_coefficients_xderiv(self):
        p = Dimension('p')

        nstc = 8

        grid = Grid(shape=(51, 51, 51))
        x, y, z = grid.dimensions

        f = Function(name='f', grid=grid, space_order=(2*nstc, 0, 0),
                     coefficients='symbolic')
        g = Function(name='g', grid=grid, space_order=(2*nstc, 0, 0))
        ax = Function(name='DD2x', space_order=0, shape=(2*nstc + 1,),
                      dimensions=(p,))
        ay = Function(name='DD2y', space_order=0, shape=(2*nstc + 1,),
                      dimensions=(p,))
        stencil_coeffs_x_p1 = Coefficient(1, f, x, ax)
        stencil_coeffs_y_p1 = Coefficient(1, f, y, ay)
        stencil_coeffs = Substitutions(stencil_coeffs_x_p1, stencil_coeffs_y_p1)

        eqn = Eq(g, f.dxdy, coefficients=stencil_coeffs)

        op = Operator(eqn)
        op()

where domain should not be relaxed here...

…ime_dims

georgebisbas · 2025-02-17T15:02:58Z

From @FabioLuporini

the solution seems particularly convoluted to me : https://github.com/devitocodes/devito/pull/2237/files#diff-908f8895b205a02f261796e377b0b34ab9f3fe9998a5e152e2c8ec102e8ab3e7R392
the comment is hard to decipher (or at least, I don’t understand it)
But most importantly, what’s really unclear to me is whether this is the right place where to inject such a fix. I’d have thought that a saved TimeFunction should have its own intervals “adjusted” in advance, so the union at line 390 returns the desired thing out of the box without any further processing. While here we do post-processing attempting to re-discovered information, so it’s a bit weird imho.
The introduction of set_upper is, imho, also debatable as we already have a translate that does a similar thing already (although not quite the same)

EdCaunt · 2025-03-10T09:54:27Z

Also agree with @FabioLuporini that this comment is quite cryptic. I also struggle to understand it

georgebisbas · 2026-05-14T15:38:54Z

Now in:

#2933

georgebisbas added the bug-py label Oct 13, 2023

georgebisbas self-assigned this Oct 13, 2023

georgebisbas linked an issue Oct 13, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request

default time_M value in presence of saved TimeFunction is wrong #2235

Open

FabioLuporini reviewed Oct 16, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread tests/test_buffering.py Outdated

FabioLuporini reviewed Oct 16, 2023

View reviewed changes

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch 4 times, most recently from 1a5341f to b1868d3 Compare October 18, 2023 11:59

FabioLuporini requested changes Oct 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread devito/ir/clusters/cluster.py Outdated

georgebisbas commented Nov 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch from f8900a7 to 1e5101a Compare November 3, 2023 17:18

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch from ea38319 to a0ddb6d Compare November 8, 2023 18:09

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch from a0ddb6d to 01337ef Compare November 16, 2023 12:58

georgebisbas requested review from FabioLuporini and mloubout November 16, 2023 18:20

FabioLuporini requested changes Nov 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch 2 times, most recently from df01a7d to 2474a68 Compare November 23, 2023 18:37

FabioLuporini reviewed Nov 24, 2023

View reviewed changes

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch 2 times, most recently from 09daaea to 9fcaba7 Compare November 24, 2023 16:31

georgebisbas requested a review from FabioLuporini November 24, 2023 16:38

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch from 9fcaba7 to 16cf29d Compare January 15, 2024 12:11

georgebisbas commented Jan 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

FabioLuporini reviewed Jan 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

georgebisbas added the compiler label Apr 25, 2024

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch from 16cf29d to 3535de8 Compare May 9, 2024 13:16

georgebisbas commented May 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

georgebisbas requested a review from FabioLuporini May 9, 2024 15:18

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch from 3535de8 to f5db549 Compare June 10, 2024 12:17

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch from f5db549 to 53aa1d3 Compare July 12, 2024 16:44

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch from 584757c to 552c480 Compare November 15, 2024 11:43

georgebisbas requested a review from EdCaunt November 15, 2024 11:51

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch from 1398213 to fc398b6 Compare November 20, 2024 16:06

George Bisbas added 13 commits February 14, 2025 14:57

tests: enhance indirection testing

b0463fb

compiler: Intersect intervals from buffered TimeDimensions

3ef1ce7

tests: Edit test_indirection

4bdb490

compiler: Only relax upper dspace in case of save

c3d4bbb

compiler: add mode to IG creation, rebase on 2208

dbab2e0

compiler: simplify solution

9602ff9

compiler: Make DataSpace intervals get the upper limit available of t…

252eeae

…ime_dims

tests: Restore redundant, fix tutorial

a2b5cc9

compiler: Derive solution from oob set of dims

0bea7d3

compiler: Rework correctness for indirections

d53eaa2

compiler: Relax intervals with upper from not mapped dimensions

18e61d4

compiler: Fix occurence of NullInterval after rebase

d36f063

docs: Pass fstrings in dense after rebase

d38e59b

georgebisbas force-pushed the gb/fix_2235 branch from fc398b6 to d38e59b Compare February 14, 2025 13:41

review-notebook-app Bot mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2025

examples: Refresh several notebooks in examples/ #2542

Open

georgebisbas mentioned this pull request May 14, 2026

compiler: Fix issue #2235 #2933

Open

georgebisbas closed this May 14, 2026

Conversation

georgebisbas commented Oct 13, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Oct 13, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mloubout commented Oct 16, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

review-notebook-app Bot commented Nov 8, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

georgebisbas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

georgebisbas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

georgebisbas commented Nov 15, 2024

Uh oh!

georgebisbas commented Nov 15, 2024

Uh oh!

georgebisbas commented Feb 17, 2025

Uh oh!

EdCaunt commented Mar 10, 2025

Uh oh!

georgebisbas commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

georgebisbas commented Oct 13, 2023 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Oct 13, 2023 •

edited

Loading