Remove no op model compile #44

HassanJbara · 2025-10-16T15:02:55Z

In flame/models/parallelize_fla you apply model compilation using apply_compile, which does the following:

def apply_compile(model: nn.Module):
    """
    Apply torch.compile to each block, which makes compilation efficient due to
    repeated structure. Alternatively one can compile the whole model (after applying DP).
    """
    ....
    logger.info("Compiling the entire model with torch.compile")
    model = torch.compile(model)
 
 ...
 
     if job_config.training.compile:
        apply_compile(model)

while this does compile some individual modules within the model, the model itself won't be compiled, since torch.compile isn't an in-place operation. Maybe I am missing something here, but the last two lines of apply_compile are meaningless without returning the wrapped model and replacing the old one. If we compile each block of the model anyway this is redundant.

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

Performance
- Optimized model compilation process by streamlining the compilation workflow while maintaining per-block compilation functionality, resulting in improved processing efficiency.

gemini-code-assist · 2025-10-16T15:03:07Z

Summary of Changes

Hello @HassanJbara, 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 refines the model compilation logic in flame/models/parallelize_fla.py by eliminating an ineffective and redundant torch.compile operation. The change ensures that only necessary compilation steps are performed, streamlining the process and removing dead code.

Highlights

Removal of Redundant Model Compilation: The torch.compile(model) call within the apply_compile function in flame/models/parallelize_fla.py has been removed. This call was identified as a no-op because torch.compile does not modify the model in-place, and the returned compiled model was not being assigned or used. Furthermore, individual blocks of the model were already being compiled, making this full model compilation redundant.

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 by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

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 pull request 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.

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. ↩

coderabbitai · 2025-10-16T15:03:21Z

Walkthrough

Removed the final full-model compilation step from the apply_compile function while retaining per-block compilation. The change eliminates a log message and the torch.compile(model) call at the end of the function without affecting control flow or error handling.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Compilation optimization `flame/models/parallelize_fla.py`	Removed final full-model compilation step and preceding log message from `apply_compile` function; per-block compilation unaffected

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

🐰 A compilation compile, removed with care,
Per-block stays strong, floating through the air,
Simpler paths now, faster to prepare,
Less is more, when done with flair! ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check	✅ Passed	The pull request title "Remove no op model compile" directly and accurately describes the primary change: removing a no-operation call to torch.compile on the full model in the apply_compile function. The title is concise, specific, and clearly conveys what is being removed and why it matters (the call is ineffective without returning or replacing the model). The title maps directly to the implementation details documented in the PR objectives, where the removal of the redundant model compilation and its associated log message are the main changes.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

✨ Finishing touches

📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f5c618c and d8cc958.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

flame/models/parallelize_fla.py (0 hunks)

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

flame/models/parallelize_fla.py

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request correctly identifies and removes a no-op call to torch.compile(model) within the apply_compile function. As you've pointed out, torch.compile is not an in-place operation, and because the returned compiled model was not being used, the call was ineffective. Removing these lines is the correct approach, especially since the function already compiles individual model components, making a final whole-model compilation redundant in this context. The change is clean, correct, and improves code clarity.

Remove no op model compile

d8cc958

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Oct 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Remove no op model compile #44

Remove no op model compile #44

Uh oh!

HassanJbara commented Oct 16, 2025 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot commented Oct 16, 2025

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Remove no op model compile #44

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Remove no op model compile #44

Uh oh!

Conversation

HassanJbara commented Oct 16, 2025 • edited by coderabbitai bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot commented Oct 16, 2025

Summary of Changes

Highlights

Footnotes

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Poem

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

HassanJbara commented Oct 16, 2025 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading