From dev-return-6193-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Mon Jun 3 22:44:07 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F26318062F for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:44:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 82179 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2019 22:44:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 82167 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jun 2019 22:44:06 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 22:44:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 0664BC0048 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 22:44:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.505 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.505 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.305, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KF3LctQGwQNP for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 22:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf1-f66.google.com (mail-lf1-f66.google.com [209.85.167.66]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 377945F24A for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 22:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f66.google.com with SMTP id q26so14874671lfc.3 for ; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:44:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n//bFcFY+6Ix2eB1Fi/Q2Sxcb8vUs2XYwAz0jYMwT5k=; b=Y5S5QZSJP0UA5Tw7fxiA93dxsFN7dBOCRUyACFZylCgGucJSYnI66KZ0ZjwWea501y 2rlLt1gNFzsNFZUC6ln9E7IyjnQ03yrkpnxtwrdKtBtyBZ1RQMrniMlgk1T2hAD+7LHw b2GYcG4aD2KJmrQkgm+YehYxnnBtvR2XZHHc8FhyTbhWSIJN7AxN9hUjcGOueODfMO6e o5V2R+aiWKwyIfhqYpWX6q9hueyf9ieXAJBZ/ClbVj0wjDrajYaUfvICMt6xvE8ITGeT meiOFr8u5397IVcB/CqqB2IAXQ2O7ZQlLkF7TkmzxC0coxxw1ChNiC6uIQ1EB/pctt6b ra/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n//bFcFY+6Ix2eB1Fi/Q2Sxcb8vUs2XYwAz0jYMwT5k=; b=S0o56r9uHXnEiN1tOig9MKLYvmUyhO8YtlV9oMGkf9NArV/l3dhdEzG+8Pkj98tnnJ UOxopsz54tHQN5HfroNMP8xmGaRSu5zPs6lCzIdHpYJ8nobGLBnwBH2jFdP7tPrO6Q7K uWcRDanHkOw68s1YSpxzzrOhW8MVZbWKQrWYi3XwNAAZZYLHsuRBa+jR/uCfLPbiI0vh W7U5RrdD7g53Ln7ZXGUEKWhaC3el5W5fkz7pAGJNcmCU0sCxmAAM/gzeD7eAyTXp7xO4 SghMVMqZWXq0CzV7Ab8CgJlWLY/ySU1IlfaRAACTB03/VbqmSw/SYc9aRbK3l/sT4ZLL Zm6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWCe91ROz3+1E1vplWZUD/oB36kN1VMcyN5t53dlQiqKGJQusGU 2Q9x1I8MOJaM0vJEA+4/7m0jKMCSfJ9ZREUU36EtOIhv X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxUexqrMxF5C0RUP05/CM7awmzQPEXi+d+j6sBRBATrhDmZ2UHcnDMr3X828eRRtA5AaKnliDlFBs72eEBqGHM= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:47e7:: with SMTP id b7mr831699lfp.53.1559601837632; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:43:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Pedro Larroy Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 15:43:20 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: CUDA / CUDNN support revisited To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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? Thanks. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:06 PM Dick Carter wrote: > > I'd like to revisit the discussion of: https://lists.apache.org/thread.ht= ml/27b84e4fc0e0728f2e4ad8b6827d7f996635021a5a4d47b5d3f4dbfb@%3Cdev.mxnet.ap= ache.org%3E now that a year has passed. > > My motivation is: > > 1. There's a lot of hard-to-read '#if CUDNN_MAJOR' code referencing cuD= NN versions back as far as v4(!?). We need to clean this out before it ham= pers our ability to nimbly move the codebase forward. > > 2. There seems to be a difference of opinion on whether we should be sup= porting 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 was https://github.com/apac= he/incubator-mxnet/pull/14476. > > 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 C= UDA/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 se= e a transitioning of the CI from CUDA9-only -> CUDA9&10 -> CUDA10 only. So= me period before CUDA9 is dropped from CI, the user community is warned. A= fter that time, CUDA10 might be the only version tested by CI, and hence th= e only version supported (until the next CUDA version came around). > > Let me propose as a 'strawman' that we claim to support CUDA version 9 an= d 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 cover= age by our CI. > > -Dick