-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
Updated Optimization Worker #93
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Consolidates previous kernel_benchmark.py and pytorch_benchmark.py into a streamlined 3-file architecture with clear separation of concerns: Architecture: - benchmark.py (299 lines): Main Benchmark class with simplified API - benchmark_kernel(): Always uses subprocess for crash protection - benchmark_pytorch(): Always uses direct mode for stable code - BenchmarkLockManager: GPU lock management for multi-worker scenarios - timing.py (437 lines): Complete timing infrastructure - Timing: time_with_cuda_events(), time_with_triton_do_bench() - Loading: prepare_pytorch_model(), load_kernel_function() - Stats: compute_timing_stats() with essential metrics (mean/std/min/max) - kernel_subprocess.py (442 lines): Subprocess runner for kernel isolation - Crash protection for potentially buggy kernels - Clean CUDA state between runs - Timeout handling Key improvements: - Eliminated string code generation (was generating Python as strings) - Removed unnecessary statistics (median, p25/p75/p95/p99) - Removed confusing use_subprocess parameter (behavior now deterministic) - Fixed dtype bug causing incorrect speedup measurements - Reduced from 5 files to 3 files with clearer naming - Code reduction: ~1,400 lines → 1,178 lines Simple API: bench = Benchmark(logger, temp_dir, lock, worker_id) pytorch_result = bench.benchmark_pytorch(problem_file) kernel_result = bench.benchmark_kernel(kernel_file, problem_file) speedup = pytorch_result['stats']['mean'] / kernel_result['time_ms']
05c9055 to
6c2ccc1
Compare
Jack-Khuu
left a comment
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.
I assume worker/worker_util are the only unique changes, lmk if that's not true
Can you check that the changes to worker_util aren't duplicates of existing functions? I'm down to move them in a different PT if it's the same, but let's keep the line changes minimal for this PR
| # ------------------------ | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def _call_llm( |
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.
Don't we already have somthing like this in the worker?
| # ------------------------ | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def _extract_code_from_response( |
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.
Ditto?
|
|
||
| return success, stdout, stderr, None | ||
|
|
||
| def verify_with_refinement( |
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.
When is this used?
Summary:
verify_with_refinement()method for simpler single-shot verification with refinement loopworker
Test
Result