Conversation
…plits would be generated
26a6f0f to
cf53bc9
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Mirrored from ggml-org/llama.cpp#18202
On MFMA hardware, MMQ performs better for medium sized problems, while dequant+rocblas performs better for large problem sizes.
currently ggml_cuda_should_use_mmq choses based on batch size and data type. This is suboptimal for MUL_MAT_ID as, even if the involved tensors are large, we end up calling rocblas for a large number of small tensors if the number of experts is high, causing poor performance.
This pr addresses this by choosing MMQ when the number of experts is high.
branch marks on a MI100 @ 160W power limit.
future note: possibly it would be better to select based on the size of the resulting splits.