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.INVALID>
Subject Re: Adding AMD CPU to CI
Date Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:28:54 GMT
I think it's worth a discussion to do a sanity check. While generally these
instructions are standardized, we also made the experience with ARM that
the theory and reality sometimes don't match. Thus, it's always good to
check.

In the next months we are going to refactor our slave creation processes.
Chance Bair has been working on rewriting Windows slaves from scratch (we
used images that haven't really been updated for 2 years - we still don't
know what was done on them) and they're ready soon. In the following
months, we will also port our Ubuntu slaves to the new method (don't have a
timeline yet). Ideally, the integration of AMD instances will only be a
matter of running the same pipeline on a different instance type. In that
Case, it should not be a big deal.

If there are big differences, that's already a yellow flag for
compatibility, but that's unlikely. But in that case, we would have to make
a more thorough time analysis and whether it's worth the effort. Maybe,
somebody else could also lend us a hand and help us with adding AMD support.

-Marco

Am Fr., 30. Nov. 2018, 01:22 hat Hao Jin <hjjn.amzn@gmail.com> geschrieben:

> f16c is also an instruction set supported by both brands' recent CPUs just
> like x86, AVX, SSE etc., and any difference in behaviors (quite impossible
> to happen or it will be a major defect) would most likely be caused by the
> underlying hardware implementation, so still, adding AMD instances is not
> adding much value here.
> Hao
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:03 PM kellen sunderland <
> kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just looked at the mf16c work and wanted to mention Rahul clearly _was_
> > thinking about AMD users in that PR.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:46 PM kellen sunderland <
> > kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From my perspective we're developing a few features like mf16c and
> MKLDNN
> > > integration specifically for Intel CPUs.  It wouldn't hurt to make sure
> > > those changes also run properly on AMD cpus.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 3:38 PM Hao Jin <hjjn.amzn@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm a bit confused about why we need extra functionality tests just
> for
> > >> AMD
> > >> CPUs, aren't AMD CPUs supporting roughly the same instruction sets as
> > the
> > >> Intel ones? In the very impossible case that something working on
> Intel
> > >> CPUs being not functioning on AMD CPUs (or vice versa), it would
> mostly
> > >> likely be related to the underlying hardware implementation of the
> same
> > >> ISA, to which we definitely do not have a good solution. So I don't
> > think
> > >> performing extra tests on functional aspect of the system on AMD CPUs
> is
> > >> adding any values.
> > >> Hao
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM Seth, Manu <sethman@amazon.com.invalid
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > +1
> > >> >
> > >> > ´╗┐On 11/29/18, 2:39 PM, "Alex Zai" <azai91@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >     What are people's thoughts on having AMD machines tested on the
> > CI?
> > >> AMD
> > >> >     machines are now available on AWS.
> > >> >
> > >> >     Best,
> > >> >     Alex
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

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