-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.3k
[feat] added the optimized config for Qwen3-30B-A3B Fp8 #22618
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
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.
Code Review
This pull request adds an optimized configuration for Fused MoE for what appears to be the Qwen3-30B-A3B model. However, the pull request description is empty and does not include any benchmark results to demonstrate the performance improvements from this new configuration. To properly evaluate this change, it's crucial to provide context and data that justify adding this specialized configuration. Please update the description with details about the test plan and the performance results (e.g., latency improvements) as per the PR template.
"2": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 64, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1, | ||
"num_warps": 4, | ||
"num_stages": 3 | ||
}, | ||
"4": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 64, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1, | ||
"num_warps": 4, | ||
"num_stages": 3 | ||
}, | ||
"8": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 32, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 256, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"num_warps": 4, | ||
"num_stages": 4 | ||
}, | ||
"16": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 64, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1, | ||
"num_warps": 4, | ||
"num_stages": 3 | ||
}, | ||
"24": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 32, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1, | ||
"num_warps": 4, | ||
"num_stages": 4 | ||
}, | ||
"32": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 64, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1, | ||
"num_warps": 4, | ||
"num_stages": 3 | ||
}, | ||
"48": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 128, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 256, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1, | ||
"num_warps": 8, | ||
"num_stages": 2 | ||
}, | ||
"64": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 32, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 256, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1, | ||
"num_warps": 4, | ||
"num_stages": 4 | ||
}, | ||
"96": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 128, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 256, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1, | ||
"num_warps": 8, | ||
"num_stages": 2 | ||
}, | ||
"128": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 32, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"num_warps": 4, | ||
"num_stages": 4 | ||
}, | ||
"256": { | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_M": 16, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_N": 64, | ||
"BLOCK_SIZE_K": 128, | ||
"GROUP_SIZE_M": 1, | ||
"num_warps": 4, | ||
"num_stages": 3 | ||
}, |
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.
The configurations for batch sizes "2", "4", "16", "32", and "256" are identical. Similarly, the configurations for "48" and "96" are identical, and for "2048" and "3072" as well.
While it's possible for different batch sizes to share an optimal configuration, having this many duplicates is unusual and may indicate that the tuning process was not exhaustive or that there's a potential copy-paste error. This could mean the configurations are not fully optimized for each batch size, which would defeat the purpose of this file.
Could you please double-check the tuning results and confirm these configurations are correct? If some are redundant, they could be removed to simplify the file, since the runtime will select the configuration for the closest batch size.
👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM project. 💬 Join our developer Slack at https://slack.vllm.ai to discuss your PR in #pr-reviews, coordinate on features in #feat- channels, or join special interest groups in #sig- channels. Just a reminder: PRs would not trigger full CI run by default. Instead, it would only run Once the PR is approved and ready to go, your PR reviewer(s) can run CI to test the changes comprehensively before merging. To run CI, PR reviewers can either: Add 🚀 |
Thank you very much for your contribution. If you could provide a description like #21700, that would be perfect |
Sure, I'll get it in that format. |
Essential Elements of an Effective PR Description Checklist
supported_models.md
andexamples
for a new model.Purpose
#22294
Test Plan
Test Result
Performance without tuned config - TP1/FP8
Performance with tuned config- TP1/FP8
(Optional) Documentation Update