Skip to content
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
{
"1": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 64,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 256,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 8,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"2": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 32,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 64,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 2,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"4": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 64,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 128,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 256,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 4,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"8": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 32,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 64,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 2,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"16": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 64,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 8,
"num_warps": 4,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"24": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 64,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 64,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 2,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"32": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 128,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 4,
"num_warps": 1,
Comment on lines +60 to +61
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

high

The configuration for a batch size of 32 appears unusual, particularly when compared to the one for batch size 48, which uses identical block dimensions.

  • num_warps: 1: Using a single warp is often suboptimal as it limits parallelism and the ability to hide memory latency. For batch size 48, num_warps is set to 2.
  • GROUP_SIZE_M: 4: This enables grouping for better L2 cache reuse, which is generally more effective for larger batch sizes. However, for batch size 48, grouping is disabled (GROUP_SIZE_M: 1).

This combination for batch size 32 is counter-intuitive and might be a typo, potentially leading to performance degradation. Could you please verify these parameters and provide benchmark data? I'd suggest aligning it with the configuration for batch size 48 if this was an oversight.

Suggested change
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 4,
"num_warps": 1,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 2,

"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"48": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 128,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 2,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"64": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 256,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 8,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"96": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 128,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 8,
"num_warps": 2,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"128": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 32,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 2,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"256": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 32,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 256,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 2,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"512": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 32,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 64,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 256,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1,
"num_warps": 2,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"1024": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 64,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 128,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 256,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 8,
"num_warps": 4,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"1536": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 128,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 256,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 8,
"num_warps": 8,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"2048": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 128,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 256,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 64,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 8,
"num_warps": 8,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"3072": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 32,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 4,
"num_warps": 2,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
},
"4096": {
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 256,
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 256,
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128,
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 16,
"num_warps": 8,
"num_stages": 2,
"waves_per_eu": 0
}
}