-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11k
Only build CUTLASS MoE kernels on Hopper #19648
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
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Huy Do <huydhn@gmail.com>
|
👋 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 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 🚀 |
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.
Summary of Changes
Hello @huydhn, 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 build and runtime issue where CUTLASS MoE kernels, which are only compatible with Hopper architecture, were being compiled for other architectures like Ada Lovelace (sm_100a). By modifying the CMake build configuration to target only Hopper, this change prevents compilation errors and ensures that users on non-Hopper GPUs do not encounter runtime errors related to missing kernels, specifically fixing issue #18841 and unblocking the 0.9.2 release.
Highlights
- Build Configuration: Restricted the CUDA architectures targeted for building CUTLASS MoE kernels to only include Hopper (sm_90a).
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
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configureGemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
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.
Code Review
This pull request addresses a build issue where CUTLASS MoE kernels, designed exclusively for Hopper (9.0a) architecture, were incorrectly being considered for compilation on newer, incompatible architectures (e.g., 10.0a). This previously led to runtime errors due to missing kernel images for the target device.
The fix involves a targeted change in CMakeLists.txt that modifies the cuda_archs_loose_intersection call. It now correctly specifies only "9.0a" as a source architecture for these MoE kernels, preventing their erroneous build for other architectures. A minor update to a comment also helps to emphasize this Hopper-only restriction.
The changes are clear, directly resolve the described issue, and the provided test plan and results confirm the fix. The code modification aligns with the intended behavior and existing documentation within the comments.
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.
Nice good catch! Thank you! (Will have to investigate why the cmake didn't build 9.0a at all but this is a good fix regardless)
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.
Looks good, thanks!
Purpose
Fix #18841 and unblock 0.9.2 release
10.0was added by #16362, but the kernels only work on9.0HopperTest Plan
Rebuild vLLM locally and load
meta-llama/Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct-FP8on a 8xH100 serverTest Result
The model is loaded successfully instead of failing with
CUDA error: no kernel image is available for execution on the devicecc @simon-mo @houseroad