mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: CUDA Support [DISCUSS]
Date Sat, 06 Jan 2018 17:35:39 GMT
Just to provide some data. Dropping CUDA8 support would deprecate the
Fermi-Architecture, effectively affecting the following devices:

2.0 Fermi <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_(microarchitecture)> GF100,
GF110 GeForce GTX 590, GeForce GTX 580, GeForce GTX 570, GeForce GTX 480,
GeForce GTX 470, GeForce GTX 465, GeForce GTX 480M Quadro 6000, Quadro
5000, Quadro 4000, Quadro 4000 for Mac, Quadro Plex 7000, Quadro 5010M,
Quadro 5000M Tesla C2075, Tesla C2050/C2070, Tesla M2050/M2070/M2075/M2090
2.1 GF104, GF106 GF108, GF114, GF116, GF117, GF119 GeForce GTX 560 Ti,
GeForce GTX 550 Ti, GeForce GTX 460, GeForce GTS 450, GeForce GTS 450*,
GeForce GT 640 (GDDR3), GeForce GT 630, GeForce GT 620, GeForce GT 610,
GeForce GT 520, GeForce GT 440, GeForce GT 440*, GeForce GT 430, GeForce GT
430*, GeForce GT 420*,
GeForce GTX 675M, GeForce GTX 670M, GeForce GT 635M, GeForce GT 630M,
GeForce GT 625M, GeForce GT 720M, GeForce GT 620M, GeForce 710M, GeForce
610M, GeForce 820M, GeForce GTX 580M, GeForce GTX 570M, GeForce GTX 560M,
GeForce GT 555M, GeForce GT 550M, GeForce GT 540M, GeForce GT 525M, GeForce
GT 520MX, GeForce GT 520M, GeForce GTX 485M, GeForce GTX 470M, GeForce GTX
460M, GeForce GT 445M, GeForce GT 435M, GeForce GT 420M, GeForce GT 415M,
GeForce 710M, GeForce 410M Quadro 2000, Quadro 2000D, Quadro 600, Quadro
4000M, Quadro 3000M, Quadro 2000M, Quadro 1000M, NVS 310, NVS 315, NVS
5400M, NVS 5200M, NVS 4200M

-Marco

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 6:31 PM, kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:

> I like that proposal Bhavin.  I'm also interested to see what the other
> community members think.
>
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Bhavin Thaker <bhavinthaker@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kellen,
> >
> > Here is my opinion and stand on this:
> >
> > I see no need to test on CUDA8 in Apache MXNet CI, especially when CUDA9
> is
> > backward compatible with earlier Nvidia hardware generations. There is
> time
> > and resources cost to maintaining the various combinations in the CI and
> so
> > I am NOT in favor of running CUDA8 in CI unless there is a technical
> > reason/requirement for it. This approach helps to encourage users to move
> > to the latest CUDA version and thus keep the open-source community’s
> > maintenance cost low for the generic option of CUDA9.
> >
> > For example: If a user opens a github issue/problem with Apache MXNet and
> > CUDA8, I would ask the user to test it with CUDA9. If the problem happens
> > only on CUDA8, then a volunteer in the community may work on it. If the
> > problem happens on CUDA9 as well, then, in my humble opinion, and this
> > problem must be fixed by the community. In short, I propose that the
> MXNet
> > CI run tests only with latest CUDA9 version and NOT CUDA8.
> >
> > I am eager to hear alternate viewpoints/corrections from folks other than
> > Kellen and me.
> >
> > Bhavin Thaker.
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 8:24 AM kellen sunderland <
> > kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the thoughts Bhavin, supporting the latest release would
> also
> > be
> > > an option, and it would be easier from a support point of view.
> > >
> > > "2) I think your question probably is what should be tested by the
> Apache
> > > MXNet CI and NOT what is supported by Apache MXNet, correct?"
> > >
> > > I view these two things as being closely related, if not equivalent.
> If
> > we
> > > don't run at least basic tests of old versions of CUDA I think there
> will
> > > be issues that slip through.  That being said we can rely on users to
> > > report these issues, and chances are we'll be able to provide backwards
> > > compatible patches.  At a minimum I'd recommend we should run tests on
> > all
> > > supported CUDA versions before a release.
> > >
> > > -Kellen
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Bhavin Thaker <bhavinthaker@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Kellen,
> > > >
> > > > 1) Does Apache MXNet (Incubating) have a support matrix? I think the
> > > answer
> > > > is no, because I don’t know of where it is documented. One of the
> > mentors
> > > > told me earlier that the community uses and modifies the open-source
> > > > project as per their individual  requirements or those of the
> > community.
> > > As
> > > > far as I know, there is no single entity that is responsible for
> > > supporting
> > > > something in MXNet — corrections to my understanding are welcome.
> > > >
> > > > 2) I think your question probably is what should be tested by the
> > Apache
> > > > MXNet CI and NOT what is supported by Apache MXNet, correct?
> > > >
> > > > If yes, I propose testing only the latest CUDA9 and the respective
> > latest
> > > > cuDNN version in the MXNet CI since CUDA9 is backward compatible with
> > > > earlier Nvidia hardware generations.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to hear reasons why this would not work.
> > > >
> > > > I have commented on the github issue as well:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/8805
> > > >
> > > > Bhavin Thaker.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 3:30 AM kellen sunderland <
> > > > kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello all, I'd like to propose that we nail down exactly which
> > versions
> > > > of
> > > > > CUDA we're supporting.  We can then ensure that we've got good test
> > > > > coverage for those specific versions in CI.  At the moment it's
> > > ambiguous
> > > > > what our current policy is.  I.e. when do we drop support for old
> > > > > versions?  As a result we potentially cut a release promising to
> > > support
> > > > a
> > > > > certain version of CUDA, then retroactively drop support after we
> > find
> > > an
> > > > > issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to propose that we officially support N, and N-1 versions
> of
> > > > CUDA,
> > > > > where N is the most recent major version release.  In addition we
> can
> > > do
> > > > > our best to support libraries that are available for download for
> > those
> > > > > versions.  Supporting these CUDA versions would also dictate which
> > > > hardware
> > > > > we support in terms of compute capability (of course resource
> > > constraints
> > > > > would also play some role in our ability to support some hardware).
> > > > >
> > > > > As an example this would mean that currently we'd officially
> support
> > > CUDA
> > > > > 9.* and 8.  This would imply we support CUDNN 5.1 through 7, as
> those
> > > > > libraries are available for CUDA 8, and 9.  It would also mean we
> > > support
> > > > > 3.0-7.x (Kepler, Maxwell, Pascal, Volta) taking the more
> restrictive
> > > > > hardware requirements of CUDA 9 into account.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you all think?  Would this be a reasonable support
> strategy?
> > > Are
> > > > > these the versions you'd like to see covered in CI?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Kellen
> > > > >
> > > > > A relevant issue:
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/8805
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message