Hi David, David Elsing <david.els...@posteo.net> writes:
> I recently updated my ROCm channel [1] (which was originally forked from > the packages in the Guix-HPC channel) to version 6.4.2. It only contains > packages for one ROCm version, which I think is more suitable for Guix > proper. It also contains packages like composable-kernel and miopen, > which are required by pytorch. Maybe that would be an easier starting > point? Oh yes, that sounds great, thanks for offering this! Having multiple versions was necessary for people at AMD; I’m not sure there are cases where it could be useful for regular users? > The supported GPU architectures are defined as a package property and > can be specified transitively with > `(@ (guix-rocm packages rocm-base) set-amdgpu-targets)` (which uses > `package-mapping`). I think your proposal for parameterized packages [2] > would be suitable to specify the architecture more conveniently using > the command line. Yeah. > I'm not sure what the default architectures should be though, as the > build time for some packages (like rocblas) is already quite long for > just one architecture. Also, not all packages (like hipblaslt) support > all architectures. It might be a good idea to let CI build the packages > for each architecture separately, so that one only needs to download the > packages built for the relevant architecture. WDYT? Dunno, let’s start with recent architecture(s) as the default? > There are still a few bundled libraries and some parts expect the whole > installation to be in the same tree (like the CMake HIP language > support, for which ROCM_PATH needs to be set), so that would still need > to be improved. OK. Thank you! Ludo’.
