-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.2k
Enable ZP Support for Machete #20268
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
Conversation
👋 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 🚀 |
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.
Summary of Changes
Hello @czhu-cohere, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request enables Zero Point support for the Machete kernel within the vLLM frontend, as the Machete kernel already supports it. This change removes the previous restriction that prevented the use of zero points with Machete.
Highlights
- Machete Kernel: Enabled Zero Point (ZP) support for the Machete kernel in the vLLM frontend.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command>
or @gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
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 enables zero-point quantization for the Machete kernel by removing a feature guard. Ensure adequate test coverage at the MacheteQuantLinear
layer level to prevent regressions.
Signed-off-by: czhu-cohere <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: czhu-cohere <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: czhu-cohere <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: czhu-cohere <[email protected]>
cc @LucasWilkinson is this okay for machete? |
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.
Makes sense to me! Thanks for the contribution! Happy to see that diff is relatively small 😄. Side-note: I can't access the google doc; id love to see the numbers.
Thanks @mgoin @LucasWilkinson , I uploaded a screenshot for the latency numbers |
Signed-off-by: czhu-cohere <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: czhu-cohere <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: avigny <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: czhu-cohere <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jinzhen Lin <[email protected]>
Essential Elements of an Effective PR Description Checklist
supported_models.md
andexamples
for a new model.Purpose
The Machete kernel already support ZP so enable it in the vLLM frontend. For pre-applying the scales we follow https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/blob/main/csrc/quantization/machete/Readme.md
Test Plan
There are already correctness test with zp in
test_machete_mm.py
(underAWQ style
configs). We test the latency diff with/without zp (usingbenchmark_machete.py
) and the e2e correctness (lm-eval
, sanity check queries).We tested on an internal w4a16 asym gs=128 checkpoint (using
compressed-tensors
) based onCohereLabs/c4ai-command-a-03-2025
. The quant config isTest Result
Sanity check query
completion w/machete
completion w/marlin
lm-eval (mmlu_pro)
latency
the summary is that across the different shapes, with zp is ~1.5% higher latency on average.
(Optional) Documentation Update