[https://nvbugs/6544407][fix] unwaive glm5 stress test - #17276
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Chuang Zhu <111838961+chuangz0@users.noreply.github.com>
WalkthroughThe integration waive list removes the skip entry for the B200 GLM5 NVFP4 TP4/EP4/DP stress test. Changes
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
|
/bot run |
|
PR_Github #63916 [ run ] triggered by Bot. Commit: |
brnguyen2
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The deletion is correct and complete — the removed entry matches the pytest node ID exactly, and no duplicate or leftover waiver for this test exists elsewhere in test_lists.
The gap is evidence. This test is listed only in tests/integration/test_lists/qa/llm_function_stress.txt:8, not in any test-db/l0_*.yml, so /bot run on this PR will not execute it — nothing in CI can confirm the unwaive. Combined with what the test does (tests/integration/defs/disaggregated/test_disaggregated.py:2807: 8×B200, 35k requests at concurrency 512, 0.90 accuracy gate, 10% request cancellation), "unable to reproduce the error on latest main" is thin: that profile fails intermittently, which is usually why it gets waived in the first place.
Before merging, please add to the description: how many runs of disaggregated/test_disaggregated.py::test_disaggregated_stress_test[input8k-output1k-conc512-glm5_nvfp4_tp4_ep4_dp_stress] you did on main, and a link to at least one passing run. Also state the disposition of https://nvbugs/6544407 — if the failure is genuinely gone the bug should be closed (or closed as not-repro) in the same pass, otherwise the waiver and the bug drift apart and the next person hitting it has no trail. If the root cause was actually fixed by a specific commit, naming it would make this a one-line approve.
| full:B200/accuracy/test_llm_api_pytorch.py::TestQwen3_30B_A3B::test_dummy_load_format SKIP (https://nvbugs/6525059) | ||
| full:B200/disaggregated/test_disaggregated.py::test_disaggregated_stress_test[input8k-output1k-conc512-deepseek_r1_v2_fp4_stress] SKIP (https://nvbugs/6472256) | ||
| full:B200/disaggregated/test_disaggregated.py::test_disaggregated_stress_test[input8k-output1k-conc512-glm5_nvfp4_tp4_ep4_dp_stress] SKIP (https://nvbugs/6544407) | ||
| full:B200/disaggregated/test_disaggregated.py::test_disaggregated_stress_test[input8k-output1k-conc512-qwen3_32b_fp8_stress] SKIP (https://nvbugs/6472256) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Worth noting for whoever reviews the QA side: the two sibling stress waivers here (deepseek_r1_v2_fp4_stress and qwen3_32b_fp8_stress, both https://nvbugs/6472256) stay in place, so this unwaive is genuinely scoped to the GLM5 case — good. But since none of these run in pre-merge CI, the first signal that the GLM5 unwaive was premature will be a red QA stress campaign. If you're not confident the underlying issue is fixed (vs. just not reproducing), consider holding this until a couple of clean QA stress runs land rather than using the campaign as the experiment.
|
Holding on this one — I don't think the evidence retires the risk yet. nvbugs/6544407 is still open P0 ( The triage on the bug also names a concrete, still-unapplied mitigation: the run starts Two ways I'd be happy to approve:
Nothing here is blocking on my side beyond that evidence — the diff itself is a one-line removal of a |
|
PR_Github #63916 [ run ] completed with state |
Dev Engineer Review
tests/integration/test_lists/waives.txt.main.The error was not reproduced after running the test five times on the b200 x8 node,
link https://prod.blsm.nvidia.com/swqa-tensorrt-qa-test/job/DEBUG_LLM_FUNCTION_CLUSTER_TEST/1845/
QA Engineer Review
tests/integration/test_lists/waives.txt.Description
unable to reproduce the error on latest main
Test Coverage
PR Checklist
Please review the following before submitting your PR:
PR description clearly explains what and why. If using CodeRabbit's summary, please make sure it makes sense.
PR Follows TRT-LLM CODING GUIDELINES to the best of your knowledge.
Test cases are provided for new code paths (see test instructions)
If PR introduces API changes, an appropriate PR label is added - either
api-compatibleorapi-breaking. Forapi-breaking, includeBREAKINGin the PR title.Any new dependencies have been scanned for license and vulnerabilities
CODEOWNERS updated if ownership changes
Documentation updated as needed
Update tava architecture diagram if there is a significant design change in PR.
The reviewers assigned automatically/manually are appropriate for the PR.
Please check this after reviewing the above items as appropriate for this PR.
GitHub Bot Help
To see a list of available CI bot commands, please comment
/bot help.