mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Larroy <>
Subject Re: CUDA / CUDNN support revisited
Date Mon, 03 Jun 2019 22:43:20 GMT
Your proposal of having support for N and N-1 makes a lot of sense to
me. Are there use cases for supporting older CUDA versions?


On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:06 PM Dick Carter <> wrote:
> I'd like to revisit the discussion of:
now that a year has passed.
> My motivation is:
> 1.  There's a lot of hard-to-read  '#if CUDNN_MAJOR' code referencing cuDNN versions
back as far as v4(!?).  We need to clean this out before it hampers our ability to nimbly
move the codebase forward.
> 2.  There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether we should be supporting version
'N-1' (e.g. cuDNN6).  Our current MXNet 1.5 candidate does not compile against cuDNN v6, so
this should be either fixed or be up-front stated to the user community.  The breaking PR
> Having read the prior discussion, my take on it is:
> - Users should be given an ample time period (1 year?) to move to a new CUDA/cuDNN version
once it becomes 'usable.'
> - We should not claim to support a given version if it is no longer part of the MXNet
CI.  User's should be warned of an impeding dropping of this 'testing support.'
> So these statements do not necessarily promise 'N-1' support.  I could see a transitioning
of the CI from CUDA9-only -> CUDA9&10 -> CUDA10 only.  Some period before CUDA9
is dropped from CI, the user community is warned.  After that time, CUDA10 might be the only
version tested by CI, and hence the only version supported (until the next CUDA version came
> Let me propose as a 'strawman' that we claim to support CUDA version 9 and 10, with cuDNN
version 7 only.  Those versions have been out for over 1.5 years.  So no CUDA 8 or cuDNN v6
support- over 1.5 years old with no coverage by our CI.
>     -Dick

View raw message