Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Would it work if we kept
return t
here?The problem with using
t.tolist()
here is that we would need to changehttps://github.com/pytorch/vision/blob/main/references/classification/train.py#L78
fromnum_processed_samples = utils.reduce_across_processes(num_processed_samples)
to
num_processed_samples = utils.reduce_across_processes(num_processed_samples)[0]
because otherwise the code after that wouldn't work as expected: comparing an int to a tensor of length 1 works, but we can't compare an int with a list of length 1 in the same way.
But then if we used
num_processed_samples = utils.reduce_across_processes(num_processed_samples)[0]
, we would have a similar problem in the non-distributed setting: we can't index an integer.I feel like just removing the
tolist()
call is actually enough?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.
My understanding was that
val
was supposed to be a list (because of line 32). The issue is that when not in a distributed setting, the return of line 405 will cause the subsequenttolist
call to fail.If
val
can also be an integer, I think that's an issue. Perhaps specifying the typing info ofval
can make things clearer. Or alternatively theval
parameter should be renamed and be of a single type (for example list).I'm going to close the PR and let you choose the solution you would like for this bug. Let me know when you have it to help you with the reviw.