Skip to content

Conversation

@jainapurva
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@pytorch-bot
Copy link

pytorch-bot bot commented Dec 3, 2025

🔗 Helpful Links

🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/ao/3419

Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed.

❌ 2 New Failures

As of commit 44ce800 with merge base 73730e8 (image):

NEW FAILURES - The following jobs have failed:

This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes.

@meta-cla meta-cla bot added the CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed. label Dec 3, 2025
and not is_sm_at_least_100()
)

if skip_conv_benchmarks:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel conditions seems a bit convoluted here

maybe:

if do_benchmarks:
    if op_name in ("conv2d", "conv3d") and not is_sm_at_least_100():
        print warning
   else:
      # can also move this part to a function to make it clearer
       ....

r_speedup = None
# use roofline model to estimate gemm time using equivalent GEMM dims
r_bf16_gemm_time_s = float(
bf16_gemm_time_sympy.subs(M, gemm_M).subs(K, gemm_K).subs(N, gemm_N)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is the memory operations of conv the same as linear well?

mem_gemm_time_s = (

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As conv is an implicit gemm, I'm assuming the memory operations for gemm and conv should be same.


# real gemm benchmark time, also not added yet
# if enabled, also measured observed gemm time
# gemm benchmarks for conv not implemented, as conv uses implicit GEMM
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we should run the conv ops I think?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We're running conv op in benchmarks

Copy link
Contributor

@jerryzh168 jerryzh168 Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that's a bit different I think, that one is doing e2e speedup.

we can do the same that linear is doing:

that only run the fp8 conv op itself (without all the quant ops for act and weight)

@jainapurva jainapurva marked this pull request as ready for review December 10, 2025 05:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

CLA Signed This label is managed by the Facebook bot. Authors need to sign the CLA before a PR can be reviewed.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants