Praying to the kernel gods for some Rust FP8 training
rfoo [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I'd recommend having a "gemm with a twist" [0] example in the README.md instead of having an element-wise example. It's pretty hard to evaluate how helpful this is for AI otherwise.
[0] For example, gemm but the lhs is in fp8 e4m3 and rhs is in bf16 and we want fp32 accumulation, output to bf16 after applying GELU.
ashvardanian [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Agreed! I was looking through the summation example < https://github.com/tracel-ai/cubecl/blob/main/examples/sum_t...> and it seems like the primary focus is on the more traditional pre-2018 GPU programming without explicit warp-level operations, asynchrony, atomics, barriers, or countless tensor-core operations.
The project feels very nice and it would be great to have more notes in the README on the excluded functionality to better scope its applicability in more advanced GPGPU scenarios.
gitroom [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Gotta say, the constant dance between all these GPU frameworks kinda wears me out sometimes - always chasing that better build, you know?
In Halide, the concept was great, yet the problems in kernel development were moved to the side of "scheduling", i.e. determining tiling/vectorization/parallellization for the kernel runs.
the__alchemist [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Love it. I've been using cudarc lately; would love to try this since it looks like it can share data structures between host and device (?). I infer that this is a higher-level abstraction.
zekrioca [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Very interesting project! I am wondering how it compare against OpenCL, which I think adopts the same fundamental idea (write once, run everywhere)? Is it about CUbeCL's internal optimization for Rust that happens at compile time?
fc417fc802 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This appears to be single source which would make it similar to SYCL.
Given that it can target WGPU I'm really wondering why OpenCL isn't included as a backend. One of my biggest complaints about GPGPU stuff is that so many of the solutions are GPU only, and often only target the vendor compute APIs (CUDA, ROCm) which have much narrower ecosystem support (versus an older core vulkan profile for example).
It's desirable to be able to target CPU for compatibility, debugging, and also because it can be nice to have a single solution for parallelizing all your data heavy work. The latter reduces mental overhead and permits more code reuse.
zekrioca [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Makes sense. And indeed, having OpenCL as a backend would be a very interesting extension.
nathanielsimard [3 hidden]5 mins ago
A lot of things happen at compile time, but you can execute arbitrary code in your kernel that executes at compile time, similar to generics, but with more flexibility. It's very natural to branch on a comptime config to select an algorithm.
I don't think that fits; that's a ML framework. The others in the link are general GPU frameworks.
adastra22 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Where is the Metal love…
Almondsetat [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Why would anyone love something born out of pure spite for industry standards?
m-schuetz [3 hidden]5 mins ago
To be fair, the industry standards all suck except for CUDA.
pjmlp [3 hidden]5 mins ago
For the same reason CUDA and ROCm are supported.
miohtama [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Apple is known to be not that great contributor to open source, unlike Nvidia, AMD, Intel.
pjmlp [3 hidden]5 mins ago
You should check Linus opinion on those.
Also, to whom do you have to thank LLVM exists in first place, and has not fizzled out as yet another university compiler research project?
syl20bnr [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It also compiles directly to MSL, it is just missing from the post title.
adastra22 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
No it compiles indirectly through wgpu, which means it doesn’t have access to any Metal extensions not exposed by the wgpu interface.
syl20bnr [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I am the coder of the MSL dialect for the CubeCL CPP compiler. Since 0.5 release it directly compiles to MSL and support simdgroup matrix functions for instance. It does use wgpu for the runtime but without naga as we added msl pass through to wgpu just for this.
moffkalast [3 hidden]5 mins ago
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine.
[0] For example, gemm but the lhs is in fp8 e4m3 and rhs is in bf16 and we want fp32 accumulation, output to bf16 after applying GELU.
The project feels very nice and it would be great to have more notes in the README on the excluded functionality to better scope its applicability in more advanced GPGPU scenarios.
In Halide, the concept was great, yet the problems in kernel development were moved to the side of "scheduling", i.e. determining tiling/vectorization/parallellization for the kernel runs.
Given that it can target WGPU I'm really wondering why OpenCL isn't included as a backend. One of my biggest complaints about GPGPU stuff is that so many of the solutions are GPU only, and often only target the vendor compute APIs (CUDA, ROCm) which have much narrower ecosystem support (versus an older core vulkan profile for example).
It's desirable to be able to target CPU for compatibility, debugging, and also because it can be nice to have a single solution for parallelizing all your data heavy work. The latter reduces mental overhead and permits more code reuse.
Also, to whom do you have to thank LLVM exists in first place, and has not fizzled out as yet another university compiler research project?