Prune torch cuda arch list to match upstream

[isuruf]

Checklist

• Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
• Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
• Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
• Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
• Ensured the license file is being packaged.

[conda-forge-admin]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe/meta.yaml) and found it was in an excellent condition.

I do have some suggestions for making it better though...

For recipe/meta.yaml:

• ℹ️ The recipe is not parsable by parser conda-souschef (grayskull). This parser is not currently used by conda-forge, but may be in the future. We are collecting information to see which recipes are compatible with grayskull.
• ℹ️ The recipe is not parsable by parser conda-recipe-manager. The recipe can only be automatically migrated to the new v1 format if it is parseable by conda-recipe-manager.

_{This message was generated by GitHub Actions workflow run https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge-webservices/actions/runs/12499338117. Examine the logs at this URL for more detail.}

[hmaarrfk]

It seems like a mistake to remove 8.9 to me. This targets 4090s and 6000 ada

[isuruf]

Is there a difference between the code generated for 8.6 vs code generated for 8.9? Removing 8.9 here does not mean that those targets are dropped. Just that 8.9 compute capability devices will use code compiled for 8.6.

[hmaarrfk]

Is there a difference between the code generated for 8.6 vs code generated for 8.9? Removing 8.9 here does not mean that those targets are dropped. Just that 8.9 compute capability devices will use code compiled for 8.6.

I’m honestly really not sure and it is difficult to tell without further inspection. How can one tell in practice?

[isuruf]

You have to run benchmarks to see if it does make sense. Since this is what upstream wheels do and most people use those wheels, I think we would have seen reports upstream if there was a difference.

[hmaarrfk]

I think we would have seen reports upstream if there was a difference.

I think very few people have skills to compile pytorch from source.

I can run a benchmark in 1 week if you can prepare one for me. I have a 4090.

[hmaarrfk]

I think there are a few differences in the capabilities of 8.6 and 8.9 that we should keep both...
https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-c-programming-guide/#arithmetic-instructions

they seem hard to trigger and would take us a lot of time to design benchmarks for (i think)

[hmaarrfk]

It also seems that many lesser 40 series would benefit. Not just “those with highest budgets”

[rgommers]

Benchmarks are always great to inform decisions on what to build yes or no, so 👍🏼 from me for waiting for those. In principle this change seems correct though, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary of significant value of making different choices, it seems like the upstream TORCH_CUDA_ARCH_LIST should always be matched.

[h-vetinari]

FWIW, that discussion came up again in #393, and, after discussion, we added 10.0;12.0 and dropped 6.1;8.9, see
216502d
7b937ea

This matches the union of the upstream builds for 12.6 & 12.8 AFAIU. So closing this PR as obsolete