[Bugfix] Restrict Machete to only run on Hopper

[mgoin]

Purpose

Machete is only built for SM90a

vllm/CMakeLists.txt

Lines 650 to 652 in 9907fc4

	# The machete kernels only work on hopper and require CUDA 12.0 or later.
	# Only build Machete kernels if we are building for something compatible with sm90a
	cuda_archs_loose_intersection(MACHETE_ARCHS "9.0a" "${CUDA_ARCHS}")

Test Plan

Test Result

[github-actions]

👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM project.

💬 Join our developer Slack at https://slack.vllm.ai to discuss your PR in #pr-reviews, coordinate on features in #feat- channels, or join special interest groups in #sig- channels.

Just a reminder: PRs would not trigger full CI run by default. Instead, it would only run fastcheck CI which starts running only a small and essential subset of CI tests to quickly catch errors. You can run other CI tests on top of those by going to your fastcheck build on Buildkite UI (linked in the PR checks section) and unblock them. If you do not have permission to unblock, ping simon-mo or khluu to add you in our Buildkite org.

Once the PR is approved and ready to go, your PR reviewer(s) can run CI to test the changes comprehensively before merging.

To run CI, PR reviewers can either: Add ready label to the PR or enable auto-merge.

🚀

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @mgoin, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a bug by introducing a hardware-specific restriction for the Machete kernel. The change ensures that the Machete kernel will only be enabled and utilized on NVIDIA Hopper GPUs, thereby preventing potential issues or incorrect behavior when running on incompatible architectures.

Highlights

• Bugfix: Hardware Restriction: Implemented a check within the Machete kernel's can_implement method to ensure it only runs on NVIDIA Hopper architecture (compute capability 90). This prevents the kernel from being used on unsupported hardware.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request aims to restrict the Machete kernel to Hopper GPUs by adding a device capability check. My review found that the new check contains a critical bug due to a typo in a method name, which would cause a runtime error. Furthermore, the check itself is redundant, as an existing mechanism using get_min_capability() already enforces this restriction. I've recommended removing the newly added code to both fix the bug and eliminate the redundant logic.