Regarding cost, yes we could run this nightly or simply make it run an existing test suite that would make sense rather than having it duplicate a suite.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 9:26 AM Kumar, Vikas <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think there is any downside to this proposal. I think a basic > sanity CI testing on AMD processors will give extra boost to our tests. > This adds to developer productivity and they have one less thing to worry > about. Developers have spent time in past where they had to manually test > on AMD processors, MKLDNN being the recent instance. It's good to have > those test in CI pipeline. > All I see is benefit. If the $ cost is not too high for basic sanity > testing, we should do this, until and unless some strong downside is called > out. > > +1 > > > On 11/29/18, 5:37 PM, "Anirudh Subramanian" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Instruction set extensions support like AVX2, AVX512 etc. can vary > between > AMD and Intel and there can also be a time lag between when Intel > supports > it versus when AMD supports it. > Also, in the future this setup may be useful in case MXNet supports AMD > GPUs and AWS also happens to have support for it. > > Anirudh > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:29 PM Marco de Abreu > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think it's worth a discussion to do a sanity check. While > generally these > > instructions are standardized, we also made the experience with ARM > that > > the theory and reality sometimes don't match. Thus, it's always good > to > > check. > > > > In the next months we are going to refactor our slave creation > processes. > > Chance Bair has been working on rewriting Windows slaves from > scratch (we > > used images that haven't really been updated for 2 years - we still > don't > > know what was done on them) and they're ready soon. In the following > > months, we will also port our Ubuntu slaves to the new method (don't > have a > > timeline yet). Ideally, the integration of AMD instances will only > be a > > matter of running the same pipeline on a different instance type. In > that > > Case, it should not be a big deal. > > > > If there are big differences, that's already a yellow flag for > > compatibility, but that's unlikely. But in that case, we would have > to make > > a more thorough time analysis and whether it's worth the effort. > Maybe, > > somebody else could also lend us a hand and help us with adding AMD > > support. > > > > -Marco > > > > Am Fr., 30. Nov. 2018, 01:22 hat Hao Jin <[email protected]> > > geschrieben: > > > > > f16c is also an instruction set supported by both brands' recent > CPUs > > just > > > like x86, AVX, SSE etc., and any difference in behaviors (quite > > impossible > > > to happen or it will be a major defect) would most likely be > caused by > > the > > > underlying hardware implementation, so still, adding AMD instances > is not > > > adding much value here. > > > Hao > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:03 PM kellen sunderland < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Just looked at the mf16c work and wanted to mention Rahul > clearly _was_ > > > > thinking about AMD users in that PR. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:46 PM kellen sunderland < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From my perspective we're developing a few features like mf16c > and > > > MKLDNN > > > > > integration specifically for Intel CPUs. It wouldn't hurt to > make > > sure > > > > > those changes also run properly on AMD cpus. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 3:38 PM Hao Jin <[email protected] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I'm a bit confused about why we need extra functionality > tests just > > > for > > > > >> AMD > > > > >> CPUs, aren't AMD CPUs supporting roughly the same instruction > sets > > as > > > > the > > > > >> Intel ones? In the very impossible case that something > working on > > > Intel > > > > >> CPUs being not functioning on AMD CPUs (or vice versa), it > would > > > mostly > > > > >> likely be related to the underlying hardware implementation > of the > > > same > > > > >> ISA, to which we definitely do not have a good solution. So I > don't > > > > think > > > > >> performing extra tests on functional aspect of the system on > AMD > > CPUs > > > is > > > > >> adding any values. > > > > >> Hao > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM Seth, Manu > > <[email protected] > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > +1 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On 11/29/18, 2:39 PM, "Alex Zai" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > What are people's thoughts on having AMD machines > tested on > > the > > > > CI? > > > > >> AMD > > > > >> > machines are now available on AWS. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Best, > > > > >> > Alex > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
