-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[ Kernel ] Enable Dynamic Per Token fp8
#6547
[ Kernel ] Enable Dynamic Per Token fp8
#6547
Conversation
fp8
/ready |
qinput, x_scale = ops.scaled_fp8_quant(input, input_scale) | ||
qinput, x_scale = ops.scaled_fp8_quant(input, | ||
input_scale, | ||
use_per_token_if_dynamic=True) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't use_per_token_if_dynamic
be set by a scheme or something? I don't see why it should always be true for this case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In what case would we not want to use dynamic per token?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mgoin the hypothesis here is that dynamic per token is an overall win over dynamic per tensor when supported. Higher accuracy, but also easier to fuse RMSNorm + Quant, and fewer dependencies so better parallelization for the quantize kernels overall. Downside is more scales.
We'll need to benchmark, but IMO ok for this PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I assume there is a decent performance hit compared to produce/using per-tensor scale, is this not the case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wouldn't assume a decent performance hit -- the overheads from the CUTLASS epilogues are quite small (like 3%), and there are advantages to doing per-token when quantizing as well. We'll measure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I changed my mind -- as I am implementing the per-token/per-channel wrapper for torch._scaled_mm
, I think it would be nicer to grab this from a config somewhere
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tried to pass this from the scheme. However, this became very hard because I needed to check if cutlass is supported in multiple places
I think that deciding this here is the right place
DO NOT LAND UNTIL VARUNS PR GOES IN FIRST |
Signed-off-by: Alvant <[email protected]>
SUMMARY:
fp8
RESULTS:
nm-testing/Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct-W8A8-FP8-Channelwise-compressed-tensors
BEFORE SUBMITTING, PLEASE READ THE CHECKLIST BELOW AND FILL IN THE DESCRIPTION ABOVE
PR Checklist (Click to Expand)
Thank you for your contribution to vLLM! Before submitting the pull request, please ensure the PR meets the following criteria. This helps vLLM maintain the code quality and improve the efficiency of the review process.
PR Title and Classification
Only specific types of PRs will be reviewed. The PR title is prefixed appropriately to indicate the type of change. Please use one of the following:
[Bugfix]
for bug fixes.[CI/Build]
for build or continuous integration improvements.[Doc]
for documentation fixes and improvements.[Model]
for adding a new model or improving an existing model. Model name should appear in the title.[Frontend]
For changes on the vLLM frontend (e.g., OpenAI API server,LLM
class, etc.)[Kernel]
for changes affecting CUDA kernels or other compute kernels.[Core]
for changes in the core vLLM logic (e.g.,LLMEngine
,AsyncLLMEngine
,Scheduler
, etc.)[Hardware][Vendor]
for hardware-specific changes. Vendor name should appear in the prefix (e.g.,[Hardware][AMD]
).[Misc]
for PRs that do not fit the above categories. Please use this sparingly.Note: If the PR spans more than one category, please include all relevant prefixes.
Code Quality
The PR need to meet the following code quality standards:
format.sh
to format your code.docs/source/
if the PR modifies the user-facing behaviors of vLLM. It helps vLLM user understand and utilize the new features or changes.Notes for Large Changes
Please keep the changes as concise as possible. For major architectural changes (>500 LOC excluding kernel/data/config/test), we would expect a GitHub issue (RFC) discussing the technical design and justification. Otherwise, we will tag it with
rfc-required
and might not go through the PR.What to Expect for the Reviews
The goal of the vLLM team is to be a transparent reviewing machine. We would like to make the review process transparent and efficient and make sure no contributor feel confused or frustrated. However, the vLLM team is small, so we need to prioritize some PRs over others. Here is what you can expect from the review process:
action-required
label on the PR if there are changes required. The contributor should address the comments and ping the reviewer to re-review the PR.Thank You
Finally, thank you for taking the time to read these guidelines and for your interest in contributing to vLLM. Your contributions make vLLM a great tool for everyone!