Repository navigation
Refresh paged GQA4 performance evidence - #116
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 40 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe change adds a current paged-GQA4 benchmark record with provenance, qualification, provider timings, and source progression data. Project documentation and website data now reference Oxide at 46.60 µs and FlashInfer at 23.21 µs. ChangesPaged-GQA4 evidence update
Estimated code review effort: 4 (Complex) | ~45 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
website/src/pages/evidence.astro (1)
139-141: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winUpdate the link label to match the record name.
The href now resolves to the current paged-GQA4 record, but the label still says "Optimized paged-GQA4 performance record". The README, roadmap, and parity matrix call it the "current paged-GQA4 record". Align the label, and optionally rename
pagedPrefillOptimizationEvidenceUrlinwebsite/src/data/site.ts.♻️ Proposed label change
<a href={pagedPrefillOptimizationEvidenceUrl} target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"> - Optimized paged-GQA4 performance record + Current paged-GQA4 performance record </a>🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@website/src/pages/evidence.astro` around lines 139 - 141, Update the anchor label in the evidence page to “Current paged-GQA4 record” so it matches the referenced record name; optionally rename pagedPrefillOptimizationEvidenceUrl in site data and update all usages consistently.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@website/src/pages/evidence.astro`:
- Around line 130-131: In the paged-GQA4 evidence text, preserve the whitespace
between “source” and the inline <code>49290b5</code> element by adding an
explicit Astro space expression after “source”.</code>
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@website/src/pages/evidence.astro`:
- Around line 139-141: Update the anchor label in the evidence page to “Current
paged-GQA4 record” so it matches the referenced record name; optionally rename
pagedPrefillOptimizationEvidenceUrl in site data and update all usages
consistently.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 5101f8c8-0c78-4402-8821-9ea2d6a9688c
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
README.mddocs/flashinfer-parity.mddocs/results/README.mddocs/results/h20-flashinfer-v0.6.17-paged-prefill-current-gqa4-eager-performance-02faf27-20260812.jsondocs/roadmap.mdwebsite/src/data/site.tswebsite/src/pages/evidence.astro
Summary
Performance
Exact BF16 paged GQA4 eager contract: batch 2, query lengths 32/64, KV lengths 256/1024, 16 query heads, 4 KV heads, head dimension 128. Every run uses CPU 20, 200 warmups, 50 samples, and 100 launches per sample.
All four order deltas are below 1.48%, within the 5% gate. The provider and source cohorts are recorded independently.
ptxas reports 168 registers, 32 KiB static shared memory, zero stack, zero spills, and zero local memory.
Validation
This remains an exact operator/eager contract result. It makes no isolated-kernel, Graph-performance, model, serving, other-shape, other-GPU, or overall-library claim.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Performance Updates
Documentation