Skip to content

Added support for gfx950 architecture platform - #2850

Open
zahiqbal wants to merge 5 commits into
develop-upstreamfrom
gfx-architecture-support
Open

Added support for gfx950 architecture platform#2850
zahiqbal wants to merge 5 commits into
develop-upstreamfrom
gfx-architecture-support

Conversation

@zahiqbal

Copy link
Copy Markdown

No description provided.

@zahiqbal
zahiqbal requested a review from jayfurmanek February 11, 2025 16:49
i. migrating third_party/mkl to @local_xla//xla/tsl/mkl
ii. removal of cuda.h header
iii. replace build_pip_package rule with wheel in build_rocm_python3 script
Comment thread build_rocm_python3
fi

if [ -f /usertools/rocm.bazelrc ]; then
# Use the bazelrc files in /usertools if available

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are these changes needed?

@zahiqbal zahiqbal Feb 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reverted it. I added this to fix CI build, however it is only use for locally build. I may merge in separate PR if required

@zahiqbal
zahiqbal force-pushed the gfx-architecture-support branch from c928bb2 to ed6bf74 Compare February 12, 2025 15:33
absl::flat_hash_set<std::string> FP16SupportedDevices = {
{"gfx906"}, {"gfx908"}, {"gfx90a"}, {"gfx910"}, {"gfx940"}, {"gfx941"},
{"gfx942"}, {"gfx1010"}, {"gfx1012"}, {"gfx1030"},
{"gfx942"}, {"gfx950"},

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there any gfx that is not listed here at this point? Should we just return true?

@@ -340,7 +340,8 @@ std::string MapGCNArchNameTokenToFeatureStr(const std::string& token,
return "+sramecc";
} else if (token == "sramecc-") {
if (gfx == "gfx90a" || gfx == "gfx940" || gfx == "gfx941" ||

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should remove this? This was a workaround for one specific machine. Albeit we might just do it unconditionally.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants