Skip to content

[ROCm][Perf][Qwen3.8] Keep dense mono K2 on during MTP verify. - #64720

Open
abrahamzewoudie wants to merge 2 commits into
vllm-project:mainfrom
abrahamzewoudie:rocm/qwen38-dense-mono-mtp-verify
Open

abrahamzewoudie wants to merge 2 commits into
vllm-project:mainfrom
abrahamzewoudie:rocm/qwen38-dense-mono-mtp-verify

Conversation

@abrahamzewoudie

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Depends on #61573. This branch is that mono-kernel branch plus one commit. Review the latest commit for the MTP change. The other files are #61573 and are not new here.

An MTP verify step is wider than a plain decode, so the mono graph turned off. K1 stays on vLLM's GDN core, which can roll a rejected draft back. K2 stays on the fused MXFP4 feed-forward while the step fits the K2 cap. Quark MXFP4 checkpoints store mtp.* as BF16 under quantization_config.exclude, so those draft weights load unquantized.

Serve with speculative-config: {"method": "mtp", "num_speculative_tokens": 3} and VLLM_ROCM_MONO_DECODE=1. k=3 is the best combined geomean at TP1 and TP2. VL is highest at k=2.

MI355X, 20-config sweep per TP, versus the best Argos mono kernel with no speculative decoding. The k=1 column is from the earlier k=1 summary.

TP1. Mono kernel + MTP vs mono kernel

k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4
TP1 text, Mono+MTP over Mono +6.5% +11.3% +13.4% +10.9%
TP1 VL, Mono+MTP over Mono +4.5% +8.6% +8.0% +6.0%
TP1 combined, Mono+MTP over Mono +5.7% +10.2% +11.2% +8.9%

TP2. Mono kernel + MTP vs mono kernel

k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4
TP2 text, Mono+MTP over Mono +5.0% +10.6% +12.3% +9.5%
TP2 VL, Mono+MTP over Mono −0.7% +4.5% +3.3% +1.5%
TP2 combined, Mono+MTP over Mono +2.7% +8.1% +8.6% +6.2%

Made with Cursor

abrahamzewoudie and others added 2 commits October 14, 2026 06:16
An MTP verify step is wider than a plain decode, so the mono graph turned off. Run K2 inside the row cap and load Quark MTP weights as BF16.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

@claude claude Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Claude Code Review

This pull request is from a fork — automated review is disabled. A repository maintainer can comment @claude review to run a one-time review.

@mergify mergify Bot added ci/build new-model Requests to new models qwen Related to Qwen models rocm Related to AMD ROCm labels Oct 30, 2026
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this to Todo in AMD Oct 30, 2026
@mergify

mergify Bot commented Oct 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be
merged. Please rebase the PR, @abrahamzewoudie.

https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/working-with-forks/syncing-a-fork

@mergify mergify Bot added the needs-rebase label Oct 30, 2026

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ci/build needs-rebase new-model Requests to new models qwen Related to Qwen models rocm Related to AMD ROCm

Projects

Status: Todo

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant