Kellen we run CI in us-west-2, Oregon :P sorry, Environment :( -Marco
Am Fr., 30. Nov. 2018, 18:58 hat kellen sunderland < [email protected]> geschrieben: > +1 to nightly. > > Given the awesome results shown by Alex for AMD cpus I think MKLDNN > actually would probably be something I'd use, even on my AMD machines. > Kudos to Intel for releasing this lib which works great on their hardware, > but still pretty well w/ AMD. The upshot of MKLDNN supporting AMD to me is > that it makes me much more likely to support it as the default PyPi package > (discussed in another thread). This is part of the reason I'd like to have > a sanity test in CI somewhere for AMD hardware. > > Unrelated note: regarding global warming I actually partially chose > eu-west-1 to host CI because it's carbon neutral. The cost of the CI is > significant, and although it's donated by AWS I'm glad the community is > cognizant of that. > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 9:54 AM Kumar, Vikas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I concur. +1 for nightly for pre-release suit. > > > > On 11/30/18, 9:49 AM, "Tianqi Chen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 for nightly for pre-release suit, but not the CI that triggered in > > every > > test. The best engineering practice is not to add things, but to > > remove > > things so that there is nothing can be removed. > > > > In terms of MLDNN, since it is an Intel product, I doubt optimizing > > for AMD > > CPUs is its goal, adding CI to guard against backward compatibility > is > > a > > bit overkill even. Since the AMD CPU user would likely disable this > > feature > > and use the original CPU version of the project. > > > > At least we can contribute to reducing the carbon footprint and slows > > down > > the global warming :) > > > > Tianqi > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 9:38 AM kellen sunderland < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
