mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [LAZY VOTE] Upgrade CI to CUDA 9.1 with CuDNN 7.0
Date Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:36:00 GMT
Marco,
My -1 vote is for dropping support to CUDA 8 and not for adding CUDA 9.
CUDA 9.0 support for MXNet was added Oct'30-2017, I think that all users
might not have switched to CUDA 9.0

Look at the earlier discussion on the same topic

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/27b84e4fc0e0728f2e4ad8b6827d7f996635021a5a4d47b5d3f4dbfb@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Right, the code changes would not be validated against CUDA 8.0 as part of
> the PR process.
>
> I don't have any numbers, but it's pretty unlikely that anybody is still
> using CUDA 8.0. According to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA#GPUs_supported, the devices which are
> not being supported by CUDA 9 are under the Fermi architecture which has
> been released in April 2010. These GPUs are way too old, so I think we're
> safe with not covering them specifically - this does not mean we're
> entirely deprecating them.
>
> One thing to note here is that we're not testing CUDA 9 as of now.
> Considering that the Telsa architecture (Titan V, V100) requires at least
> CUDA 9 and those are probably the most widely used GPUs for Deep Learning,
> we'd probably be covering a wider user-base in comparison to CUDA 8 if we
> make that switch.
>
> -Marco
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does this mean that MXNet Users who use CUDA 8.0 will not be
> > supported(since you are stopping to test CUDA 8.0) ? I suggest we at
> least
> > have nightly tests for CUDA 8.0.
> >
> > Do you have a sense of how many users are using CUDA 8.0/9.0 ?
> >
> > -1
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +0
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Jin, Hao <hjjn@amazon.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > ´╗┐On 3/14/18, 9:04 AM, "Anirudh" <anirudh2290@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     +1
> > > >
> > > >     On Mar 14, 2018 8:56 AM, "Wu, Jun" <jwum@amazon.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     > +1
> > > >     >
> > > >     > On 3/14/18, 8:52 AM, "Marco de Abreu" <
> > > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com>
> > > >     > wrote:
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     Hello,
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     this is a vote to upgrade our CI environment from the
> current
> > > > CUDA 8.0
> > > >     > with
> > > >     >     CuDNN 5.0 to CUDA 9.1 with CuDNN 7.0. Reason being that
> NVCC
> > > > under
> > > >     > CUDA 8
> > > >     >     does not support the Volta GPUs used in AWS P3 instances
> and
> > > thus
> > > >     > limiting
> > > >     >     our test capabilities. More details are available at [1].
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     In order to introduce support for Quantization [1], I'd
> like
> > to
> > > >     > perform a
> > > >     >     system-wide upgrade. This should have no negative impact
in
> > our
> > > > users
> > > >     > but
> > > >     >     rather makes sure that we're actually testing with the
> latest
> > > >     > versions. The
> > > >     >     PR is available at [3].
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     This means that we would stop verifying CUDA 8 and CuDNN
> 5.0
> > as
> > > > part
> > > >     > of our
> > > >     >     PR process. At a later point in time, this could be picked
> up
> > > as
> > > > a
> > > >     >     candidate for an integration test as part of the nightly
> > suite.
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     This is a lazy vote, ending on 17th of March, 2018 at 17:00
> > > (UTC
> > > > +1).
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     Best regards,
> > > >     >     Marco
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MXNET-99
> > > >     >     [2]: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9552
> > > >     >     [3]: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/10108
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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