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 Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:39:49 GMT
Yes, for short-term.

On Monday, March 19, 2018, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@apache.org> wrote:

> In the short ter, Naveen, are you ok with Linux running CUDA 9 and Windows
> CUDA 8 in order to get CUDA version coverage?
>
> On 2018/03/16 21:09:09, Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > Thanks for your input. How would you propose to proceed in terms of a
> > timeline in case this vote succeedes? I don't really have time to work
> on a
> > nightly setup right now. Would anybody in the community be able to help
> me
> > out here or shall we wait with the migration until a nightly setup for
> CUDA
> > 8 is up?
> >
> > -Marco
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Bhavin Thaker <bhavinthaker@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to the suggestion of testing CUDA8 in few nightly instances and
> using
> > > CUDA9 for most instances in CI.
> > >
> > > Bhavin Thaker.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:37 PM Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think its best to add support for CUDA 9.0 while retaining existing
> > > > support for CUDA 8, code might regress when you remove and create
> more
> > > work
> > > > to add CUDA 8 support back.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Marco de Abreu <
> > > > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah, sorry Chris, mixed up the names.
> > > > >
> > > > > @Naveen: Would you be fine with doing the switch now and adding
> > > > integration
> > > > > tests later or is this a hard constraint for you?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Chris Olivier <
> cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Isn't the TItan V the Volta and not the Tesla?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Naveen Swamy <
> mnnaveen@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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/
> > > 27b84e4fc0e0728f2e4ad8b6827d7f
> > > > > > > 996635021a5a4d47b5d3f4dbfb@%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