Skip to content

docs(tasks): the regression comment to post on ggml-org/llama.cpp#27044 - #120

Merged
glennneuber merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/pr-27044-comment
Aug 16, 2026
Merged

docs(tasks): the regression comment to post on ggml-org/llama.cpp#27044#120
glennneuber merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/pr-27044-comment

Conversation

@glennneuber

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Moved out of a session scratchpad, which isn't reachable from the working tree, so it can actually be opened and copied.

Records the regression attribution for ggml-org/llama.cpp#27044: introduced by 6eddde06a4f2 ("CUDA: refactor MMQ kernel configuration", #24127) at build b9992, which swapped a compute-capability constant for get_J_max(..., ne11) in both allocation branches — correct for !ids where ne11 is the row count, wrong for ids where it's ne12*n_expert_used.

Includes the runtime boundary measured on both sides — b9888 (ollama 0.32.1) clean in 3/3 cold runs, b10069 (ollama 0.32.2) faulting, b10353 faulting — so "first affected release" is a measurement rather than an inference.

And the per-architecture table, which is the part most likely to matter upstream: get_J_max returns 0 for ne11 = 1 on all 14 architectures, Pascal→Blackwell and Vega→CDNA3, evaluated host-side with no GPU. #24399 and #18331 were both closed as Blackwell codegen problems; a defect that reproduces identically on fourteen architectures including every AMD part is not codegen. Reachability is stated separately and marked as read-not-run, since should_use_mmq queries smpbo and needs a device.

Not posted. Per ggml-org's contribution guidelines the post has to be owned by the person submitting it — this is material to paste and edit, not text to relay verbatim.

Docs only.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

glennneuber and others added 2 commits August 16, 2026 13:20
Moved out of a session scratchpad, which is not reachable from the working
tree. Ready to paste as a comment on the upstream PR.

Records the regression attribution: introduced by 6eddde06a4f2 ("CUDA: refactor
MMQ kernel configuration", #24127) at build b9992, which swapped a
compute-capability constant for get_J_max(..., ne11) in both allocation
branches. Correct for !ids where ne11 is the row count; wrong for ids where it
is ne12*n_expert_used.

Includes the runtime boundary measured on both sides -- b9888 (ollama 0.32.1)
clean in 3/3 cold runs, b10069 (ollama 0.32.2) faulting, b10353 faulting -- so
"first affected release" is a measurement rather than an inference from source.

Not posted. Per ggml-org's contribution guidelines the post has to be written or
at least owned by the person submitting it, so this is material to paste and
edit, not text to relay verbatim.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The comment argued the defect from one machine. The table shows it is not
architecture specific at all, which matters more for this report than any of the
sm_120 evidence.

get_J_max never reads cc before the "ret -= ret % 8" step, so ne11 == 1 reduces
to zero padding on every architecture. Measured by compiling the real mmq.cuh
and evaluating it on the host -- no GPU needed, since get_J_max and get_config
are pure functions of (type, J, fallback, cc). Zero on all 14 parts from Pascal
to Blackwell and Vega to CDNA3. The degenerate range reaches ne11 = 15 on
RDNA3/3.5/4 and CDNA2/3 rather than 7, because no valid config exists at J = 8
there either.

This is the part worth putting in front of maintainers: #24399 and #18331 were
both closed as Blackwell codegen problems. A defect that reproduces identically
on fourteen architectures, including every AMD part, is not codegen.

Reachability is stated separately and marked as read rather than run --
should_use_mmq queries smpbo and needs a device. Everything traced reaches the
branch except Volta, which drops off the MMQ path entirely at this batch size
once fp16 MMA is available.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@glennneuber
glennneuber merged commit bc2fbcf into main Aug 16, 2026
1 check passed
@glennneuber
glennneuber deleted the docs/pr-27044-comment branch August 17, 2026 15:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant