Add pipeline parallel example #121
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
meta-cla
bot
added
the
CLA Signed
fmassa
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2025
I'm going to be starting adding tess specific to llama3, so having the model easily accessible without copying it would be good. Plus, with the pipeline example in #121 we already have the implementation of llama3 which is duplicated, so let's keep it in a sub-folder
fmassa
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2025
* Create _testing/models sub-folder and move llama3 there I'm going to be starting adding tess specific to llama3, so having the model easily accessible without copying it would be good. Plus, with the pipeline example in #121 we already have the implementation of llama3 which is duplicated, so let's keep it in a sub-folder * py39 typing
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Still WIP, not validated yet, but runs.
Suspect the loss_fn not being passed means we are either skipping backwards entirely or doing the wrong thing. Hopefully that's the only remaining issue