You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When compiling bitsandbytes from source on ROCm, it should allow for having a ROCm-specific PyTorch wheel within 1 minor version; i.e. if ROCm 6.3.x is installed, then any of pytorch+rocm 6.2.x, 6.3.x, or 6.4.x should work.
Motivation
PyTorch wheels lag behind ROCm releases, especially for stable versions. Additionally, there are very significant performance improvements made to nightly builds of PyTorch, which also tend to lag behind ROCm releases. ROCm 6.3 has been released with additional improvements, but bitsandbytes no longer works due to the mismatch of installed ROCm and the PyTorch wheel ROCm version. Allowing for more flexibility would help with continued work with bitsandbytes on ROCm 6.3.
Your contribution
We can submit a PR making this change and additionally test compilation and performance on our MI300X servers. Please help direct us to where in the codebase this check for matching ROCm versions happens.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Feature request
When compiling bitsandbytes from source on ROCm, it should allow for having a ROCm-specific PyTorch wheel within 1 minor version; i.e. if ROCm 6.3.x is installed, then any of pytorch+rocm 6.2.x, 6.3.x, or 6.4.x should work.
Motivation
PyTorch wheels lag behind ROCm releases, especially for stable versions. Additionally, there are very significant performance improvements made to nightly builds of PyTorch, which also tend to lag behind ROCm releases. ROCm 6.3 has been released with additional improvements, but bitsandbytes no longer works due to the mismatch of installed ROCm and the PyTorch wheel ROCm version. Allowing for more flexibility would help with continued work with bitsandbytes on ROCm 6.3.
Your contribution
We can submit a PR making this change and additionally test compilation and performance on our MI300X servers. Please help direct us to where in the codebase this check for matching ROCm versions happens.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: