-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.9k
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
[Misc] refactor ops and cache_ops layer #3913
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.
@jikunshang Thanks for submitting the PR! Please check out my comments.
vllm/ops.py
Outdated
pass | ||
|
||
|
||
class ops: |
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.
Do we really need this class? Why don't we just directly define the functions below and use from vllm import ops
instead of from vllm.ops import ops
? (we don't need to keep cache_ops
)
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.
remove class ops
and cache_ops
. since we renamed the file, import be like: from vllm import _custom_ops as ops
vllm/ops.py
Outdated
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.
Here, we are making the assumption that the function signatures of the custom ops are the same across different backends. While we already rely on this assumption, I feel this may not be necessarily true in the future.
That being said, I feel adding this layer of indirection doesn't hurt us at the moment so it's a good addition to vLLM.
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.
BTW, why don't we rename this file to _custom_ops.py
or something like that?
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.
Yes, for further backends, they need to align with custom ops function signature, or try to adapt it in their ops layer.
Renamed the file.
2be7358
to
31ffd25
Compare
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.
@jikunshang LGTM. Thanks!
FILL IN THE PR DESCRIPTION HERE
Refactor
ops
andcache_ops
layer. Add an abstraction ops layer and will usevllm._C.ops
by default.This would be easier to add/extend other third party high performance ops/kernels implementation if necessary.
FIX #xxxx (link existing issues this PR will resolve)
BEFORE SUBMITTING, PLEASE READ THE CHECKLIST BELOW AND FILL IN THE DESCRIPTION ABOVE
PR Checklist (Click to Expand)
Thank you for your contribution to vLLM! Before submitting the pull request, please ensure the PR meets the following criteria. This helps vLLM maintain the code quality and improve the efficiency of the review process.
PR Title and Classification
Only specific types of PRs will be reviewed. The PR title is prefixed appropriately to indicate the type of change. Please use one of the following:
[Bugfix]
for bug fixes.[CI/Build]
for build or continuous integration improvements.[Doc]
for documentation fixes and improvements.[Model]
for adding a new model or improving an existing model. Model name should appear in the title.[Frontend]
For changes on the vLLM frontend (e.g., OpenAI API server,LLM
class, etc.)[Kernel]
for changes affecting CUDA kernels or other compute kernels.[Core]
for changes in the core vLLM logic (e.g.,LLMEngine
,AsyncLLMEngine
,Scheduler
, etc.)[Hardware][Vendor]
for hardware-specific changes. Vendor name should appear in the prefix (e.g.,[Hardware][AMD]
).[Misc]
for PRs that do not fit the above categories. Please use this sparingly.Note: If the PR spans more than one category, please include all relevant prefixes.
Code Quality
The PR need to meet the following code quality standards:
format.sh
to format your code.docs/source/
if the PR modifies the user-facing behaviors of vLLM. It helps vLLM user understand and utilize the new features or changes.Notes for Large Changes
Please keep the changes as concise as possible. For major architectural changes (>500 LOC excluding kernel/data/config/test), we would expect a GitHub issue (RFC) discussing the technical design and justification. Otherwise, we will tag it with
rfc-required
and might not go through the PR.What to Expect for the Reviews
The goal of the vLLM team is to be a transparent reviewing machine. We would like to make the review process transparent and efficient and make sure no contributor feel confused or frustrated. However, the vLLM team is small, so we need to prioritize some PRs over others. Here is what you can expect from the review process:
action-required
label on the PR if there are changes required. The contributor should address the comments and ping the reviewer to re-review the PR.Thank You
Finally, thank you for taking the time to read these guidelines and for your interest in contributing to vLLM. Your contributions make vLLM a great tool for everyone!