Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

In FIL, clip blocks_per_sm to one wave instead of asserting #4271

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 6, 2021

Conversation

levsnv
Copy link
Contributor

@levsnv levsnv commented Oct 6, 2021

After using the feature for a while, we found it easier to sometimes set a high number and expect FIL to scale down when the GPU requires, instead of checking externally every time.

@levsnv levsnv requested a review from a team as a code owner October 6, 2021 18:42
@levsnv levsnv requested a review from canonizer October 6, 2021 18:42
@levsnv levsnv self-assigned this Oct 6, 2021
@levsnv levsnv added improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change labels Oct 6, 2021
@levsnv levsnv requested a review from jjacobelli October 6, 2021 18:44
ASSERT(blocks_per_sm <= max_blocks_per_sm,
"on this GPU, FIL blocks_per_sm cannot exceed %d",
max_blocks_per_sm);
blocks_per_sm = std::min(blocks_per_sm, max_threads_per_sm / FIL_TPB);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should also add a warning message if blocks_per_sm > max_threads_per_sm / FIL_TPB.

@dantegd
Copy link
Member

dantegd commented Oct 6, 2021

@gpucibot merge

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (branch-21.12@c3b5aec). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##             branch-21.12    #4271   +/-   ##
===============================================
  Coverage                ?   86.06%           
===============================================
  Files                   ?      231           
  Lines                   ?    18691           
  Branches                ?        0           
===============================================
  Hits                    ?    16087           
  Misses                  ?     2604           
  Partials                ?        0           
Flag Coverage Δ
dask 47.01% <0.00%> (?)
non-dask 78.75% <0.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.


Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c3b5aec...1f6810a. Read the comment docs.

@rapids-bot rapids-bot bot merged commit 51c41c4 into rapidsai:branch-21.12 Oct 6, 2021
vimarsh6739 pushed a commit to vimarsh6739/cuml that referenced this pull request Oct 9, 2023
…#4271)

After using the feature for a while, we found it easier to sometimes set a high number and expect FIL to scale down when the GPU requires, instead of checking externally every time.

Authors:
  - Levs Dolgovs (https://github.com/levsnv)

Approvers:
  - Jordan Jacobelli (https://github.com/Ethyling)
  - Andy Adinets (https://github.com/canonizer)
  - Dante Gama Dessavre (https://github.com/dantegd)

URL: rapidsai#4271
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CUDA/C++ improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function non-breaking Non-breaking change
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants