solution.py
final answer
benchmark.log
check.log
result.json
"""W4A16 weight-only quantized GEMM — fused unpack + dequant + matmul via Triton.
AWQ/GPTQ-style asymmetric int4 scheme with explicit zero-points and per-group
(group_size=128) bf16 scales. The Triton kernel loads packed uint8 weights,
unpacks nibbles, applies the per-group affine dequant, and accumulates with
bf16 activations in a single fused pass — no materialised bf16 weight matrix.
"""
from __future__ import annotations
import torch
import torch.nn as nn
import triton
import triton.language as tl
OP_TYPE = "gemm_w4a16"
SUPPORTED_PRECISIONS = ["int4_bf16"]
HARDWARE_REQUIRED = ["RTX_PRO_6000", "H100", "B200"]
GROUP_SIZE = 128
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Triton kernel (fused unpack + dequant + gemm)
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
@triton.jit
def _gemm_w4a16_kernel(
x_ptr,
w_q_ptr,
scales_ptr,
zeros_ptr,
out_ptr,
M,
N,
K,
stride_xm,
stride_xk,
stride_wq_kh,
stride_wq_n,
stride_s_g,
stride_s_n,
stride_z_g,
stride_z_n,
stride_om,
stride_on,
BLOCK_M: tl.constexpr,
BLOCK_N: tl.constexpr,
BLOCK_K: tl.constexpr,
GROUP_SIZE: tl.constexpr,
GROUP_M: tl.constexpr,
):
"""Fused W4A16 GEMM — unpack + dequant + matmul in one pass.
BLOCK_K must divide GROUP_SIZE so every K tile is inside one quant group.
"""
pid = tl.program_id(0)
num_pid_m = tl.cdiv(M, BLOCK_M)
num_pid_n = tl.cdiv(N, BLOCK_N)
num_pid_in_group = GROUP_M * num_pid_n
group_id_m = pid // num_pid_in_group
first_pid_m = group_id_m * GROUP_M
group_size_m = min(num_pid_m - first_pid_m, GROUP_M)
pid_m = first_pid_m + (pid % group_size_m)
pid_n = (pid % num_pid_in_group) // group_size_m
offs_m = pid_m * BLOCK_M + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_M)
offs_n = pid_n * BLOCK_N + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_N)
mask_m = offs_m < M
mask_n = offs_n < N
x_base = x_ptr + offs_m[:, None] * stride_xm
out_base = out_ptr + offs_m[:, None] * stride_om
acc = tl.zeros((BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N), dtype=tl.float32)
k_even_base = tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K // 2) * 2
k_odd_base = k_even_base + 1
kh_base = tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K // 2)
for k_start in range(0, K, BLOCK_K):
# --- packed weights for this K tile --------------------------------
k_half_offs = (k_start // 2) + kh_base
wq_ptrs = w_q_ptr + k_half_offs[:, None] * stride_wq_kh + offs_n[None, :] * stride_wq_n
mask_wq = (k_half_offs[:, None] < K // 2) & mask_n[None, :]
w_packed = tl.load(wq_ptrs, mask=mask_wq, other=0)
w_lo = w_packed & 0x0F
w_hi = (w_packed >> 4) & 0x0F
# --- per-group scales & zeros --------------------------------------
gid = k_start // GROUP_SIZE
s_g = tl.load(scales_ptr + gid * stride_s_g + offs_n * stride_s_n,
mask=mask_n, other=0.0)
z_g = tl.load(zeros_ptr + gid * stride_z_g + offs_n * stride_z_n,
mask=mask_n, other=0.0)
# --- dequant: w_bf16 = (w_int4 - zero) * scale --------------------
# Use f32 for subtraction (uint8→f32 is cheap) then bf16 for multiplies
# to save registers.
z_g_f32 = z_g.to(tl.float32)
w_lo_bf = (w_lo.to(tl.float32) - z_g_f32[None, :]).to(tl.bfloat16) * s_g[None, :]
w_hi_bf = (w_hi.to(tl.float32) - z_g_f32[None, :]).to(tl.bfloat16) * s_g[None, :]
# --- activations (even / odd K rows) -------------------------------
k_even = k_start + k_even_base
k_odd = k_start + k_odd_base
x_even_ptrs = x_base + k_even[None, :] * stride_xk
x_odd_ptrs = x_base + k_odd[None, :] * stride_xk
x_even = tl.load(x_even_ptrs, mask=mask_m[:, None] & (k_even[None, :] < K), other=0.0)
x_odd = tl.load(x_odd_ptrs, mask=mask_m[:, None] & (k_odd[None, :] < K), other=0.0)
# --- accumulate ----------------------------------------------------
acc += tl.dot(x_even, w_lo_bf)
acc += tl.dot(x_odd, w_hi_bf)
# --- store ------------------------------------------------------------
out_ptrs = out_base + offs_n[None, :] * stride_on
tl.store(out_ptrs, acc.to(tl.bfloat16), mask=mask_m[:, None] & mask_n[None, :])
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Heuristic config selection — tuned empirically on RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell.
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
def _pick_config(M: int, N: int, K: int):
"""Return (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N, BLOCK_K, GROUP_M) for this shape."""
BK = 128 # = GROUP_SIZE — one group per K-tile is simplest
if M == 1:
# Decode: memory-bound on weight read
return (4, 64, BK, 8)
elif M <= 4:
return (4, 64, BK, 8)
elif M <= 8:
return (8, 64, BK, 8)
elif M <= 16:
# spec-decode-ish (M=16) or small prefill
if N >= 12288:
return (8, 64, BK, 8)
return (8, 128, BK, 8)
elif M <= 32:
return (8, 128, BK, 8)
elif M <= 64:
return (16, 128, BK, 8)
else:
return (16, 128, BK, 8)
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Model
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
class Model(nn.Module):
"""W4A16 GEMM: y = x @ dequant(w_q, scales, zeros)."""
def __init__(self, M: int, N: int, K: int, group_size: int = GROUP_SIZE):
super().__init__()
assert K % group_size == 0, "K must be divisible by group_size"
assert K % 2 == 0, "K must be even (int4 packing)"
self.M, self.N, self.K = M, N, K
self.group_size = group_size
n_groups = K // group_size
# Deterministic synthetic quant — identical to reference.Model
torch.manual_seed(0xC0DE ^ (M * 1315423911 + N * 2654435761 + K))
w_full = torch.randn(K, N, dtype=torch.float32) * 0.02
w_g = w_full.view(n_groups, group_size, N)
w_min = w_g.min(dim=1, keepdim=True).values
w_max = w_g.max(dim=1, keepdim=True).values
scales = (w_max - w_min).clamp_min(1e-8) / 15.0
zeros = (-w_min / scales).round().clamp(0, 15)
w_q = ((w_g / scales) + zeros).round().clamp(0, 15).to(torch.uint8)
w_q = w_q.view(K, N)
scales_2d = scales.squeeze(1).to(torch.bfloat16)
zeros_2d = zeros.squeeze(1).to(torch.bfloat16)
# Pack int4: low nibble = even-K, high nibble = odd-K
lo = w_q[0::2].to(torch.uint8) & 0xF
hi = w_q[1::2].to(torch.uint8) & 0xF
w_packed = (lo | (hi << 4)).contiguous()
self.register_buffer("w_q", w_packed)
self.register_buffer("scales", scales_2d)
self.register_buffer("zeros", zeros_2d)
def forward(self, x: torch.Tensor) -> torch.Tensor:
M_out, K_in = x.shape
assert K_in == self.K, f"K mismatch: {K_in} vs {self.K}"
device = x.device
out = torch.empty(M_out, self.N, dtype=torch.bfloat16, device=device)
x = x.contiguous()
w_q = self.w_q.contiguous()
scales = self.scales.contiguous()
zeros = self.zeros.contiguous()
BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N, BLOCK_K, GROUP_M = _pick_config(M_out, self.N, self.K)
grid = (triton.cdiv(M_out, BLOCK_M) * triton.cdiv(self.N, BLOCK_N),)
_gemm_w4a16_kernel[grid](
x,
w_q,
scales,
zeros,
out,
M_out,
self.N,
self.K,
x.stride(0),
x.stride(1),
w_q.stride(0),
w_q.stride(1),
scales.stride(0),
scales.stride(1),
zeros.stride(0),
zeros.stride(1),
out.stride(0),
out.stride(1),
BLOCK_M=BLOCK_M,
BLOCK_N=BLOCK_N,
BLOCK_K=BLOCK_K,
GROUP_SIZE=self.group_size,
GROUP_M=GROUP_M,
num_warps=4,
)
return out
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Module-level helpers (shimmed by check.py / benchmark.py before each call)
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M = 1
N = 12288
K = 4096
def get_inputs():
x = torch.randn(M, K, dtype=torch.bfloat16)
return [x]
def get_init_inputs():
return [M, N, K]
The W4A16 fused GEMM kernel is complete and working. Here's a summary:
## Solution: Triton-based Fused W4A16 GEMM
**File**: `solution.py`
**Approach**: Custom Triton kernel that fuses int4 weight unpacking, per-group AWQ/GPTQ-style dequantization, and bf16 GEMM in a single pass. No intermediate bf16 weight matrix is materialized — the kernel loads packed `uint8` weights, extracts nibbles (even-K → low, odd-K → high), applies `w_bf = (w_int4 - zero) * scale` in bf16, and accumulates via `tl.dot` with bf16 activations.
**Key design decisions**:
- `BLOCK_K = 128 = GROUP_SIZE` — each K-tile sits entirely inside one quantization group, making the dequant trivial (single scale/zero load per iteration)
- Two `tl.dot` calls per K-iteration (one for even K rows, one for odd K rows) since the packed nibble layout necessitates this split
- bf16 arithmetic for the dequant multiply (saves registers vs f32), with f32 only for the uint8→float conversion and subtraction
- Heuristic config selection tuned empirically on the RTX PRO 6000: `BLOCK_M` ranges from 4 (decode) to 16 (large prefill), `BLOCK_N` ranges from 64 to 128 depending on N dimension
- `num_warps=4` with `GROUP_M=8` super-grouping for L2 cache reuse
**Results across 5 shapes**:
| Shape | M | N | K | GB/s | Peak Fraction |
|-------|---|---|---|------|---------------|
| 0 (decode) | 1 | 12288 | 4096 | 448 | 0.249 |
| 1 (small prefill) | 32 | 12288 | 4096 | 318 | 0.177 |
| 2 (large prefill) | 256 | 12288 | 4096 | 125 | 0.069 |
| 3 (decode, square) | 1 | 4096 | 4096 | 202 | 0.112 |
| 4 (spec-decode) | 16 | 14336 | 4096 | 455 | 0.253 |
**Geometric mean peak fraction**: 0.154 (threshold: 0.10)
The decode shapes achieve ~25% of theoretical peak DRAM bandwidth (~450 GB/s out of 1.8 TB/s), which is strong for a fused dequant+GEMM kernel where the unpack/dequant arithmetic consumes register file and instruction issue bandwidth alongside the memory traffic.
warning: `VIRTUAL_ENV=/home/infatoshi/kernelbench.com/benchmarks/hard/.venv` does not match the project environment path `/home/infatoshi/kernelbench.com/benchmarks/hard/outputs/runs/20260615_143020_deepseek-claude_deepseek-v4-pro_07_w4a16_gemm/repo/.venv` and will be ignored; use `--active` to target the active environment instead
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:23:46.847753+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:23:47.058532+00:00 elapsed_s=0.211 ms=0.059648
shape=0 variant=solution tflops=1.688 gbps=448.824 ms=0.060
shape=0 solution_peak_fraction=0.2493
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:23:47.704163+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:23:47.714141+00:00 elapsed_s=0.010 ms=0.087648
shape=1 variant=solution tflops=36.752 gbps=317.033 ms=0.088
shape=1 solution_peak_fraction=0.1761
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:23:48.365978+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:23:48.387502+00:00 elapsed_s=0.022 ms=0.282064
shape=2 variant=solution tflops=91.362 gbps=124.537 ms=0.282
shape=2 solution_peak_fraction=0.0692
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:23:48.595599+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:23:48.602199+00:00 elapsed_s=0.007 ms=0.043984
shape=3 variant=solution tflops=0.763 gbps=203.012 ms=0.044
shape=3 solution_peak_fraction=0.1128
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:23:49.370022+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:23:49.378786+00:00 elapsed_s=0.009 ms=0.069840
shape=4 variant=solution tflops=26.905 gbps=455.111 ms=0.070
shape=4 solution_peak_fraction=0.2528
peak_fraction: 0.1540
RESULT: OK
warning: `VIRTUAL_ENV=/home/infatoshi/kernelbench.com/benchmarks/hard/.venv` does not match the project environment path `/home/infatoshi/kernelbench.com/benchmarks/hard/outputs/runs/20260615_143020_deepseek-claude_deepseek-v4-pro_07_w4a16_gemm/repo/.venv` and will be ignored; use `--active` to target the active environment instead
warning: Ignoring existing virtual environment linked to non-existent Python interpreter: /home/infatoshi/kernelbench.com/benchmarks/hard/outputs/runs/20260615_143020_deepseek-claude_deepseek-v4-pro_07_w4a16_gemm/repo/.venv/bin/python3 -> python
Using CPython 3.11.15
Removed virtual environment at: /home/infatoshi/kernelbench.com/benchmarks/hard/outputs/runs/20260615_143020_deepseek-claude_deepseek-v4-pro_07_w4a16_gemm/repo/.venv
Creating virtual environment at: /home/infatoshi/kernelbench.com/benchmarks/hard/outputs/runs/20260615_143020_deepseek-claude_deepseek-v4-pro_07_w4a16_gemm/repo/.venv
Building kernelbench-hard @ file:///home/infatoshi/kernelbench.com/benchmarks/hard/outputs/runs/20260615_143020_deepseek-claude_deepseek-v4-pro_07_w4a16_gemm/repo
Built kernelbench-hard @ file:///home/infatoshi/kernelbench.com/benchmarks/hard/outputs/runs/20260615_143020_deepseek-claude_deepseek-v4-pro_07_w4a16_gemm/repo
Installed 56 packages in 66ms
PASS
{
"run_id": "20260615_143020_deepseek-claude_deepseek-v4-pro_07_w4a16_gemm",
"run_group": "",
"problem": "07_w4a16_gemm",
"harness": "deepseek-claude",
"model": "deepseek-v4-pro",
"reasoning_effort": "",
"started_at": "2026-06-15T14:30:20-06:00",
"harness_finished_at": "2026-06-15T15:22:28-06:00",
"finished_at": "2026-06-15T15:23:49-06:00",
"start_epoch": 1781555420,
"harness_end_epoch": 1781558548,
"end_epoch": 1781558629,
"has_solution": true,
"correct": true,
"failure_reason": "pass",
"retryable_infra_failure": false,
"minimum_useful_output_tokens": 5000,
"peak_fraction": 0.1540,
"template_mutated": false,
"elapsed_seconds": 3128,
"total_elapsed_seconds": 3209,
"check_elapsed_seconds": 77,
"benchmark_elapsed_seconds": 4,
"check_timeout_seconds": 180,
"benchmark_timeout_seconds": 1800,
"check_exit_code": 0,
"benchmark_exit_code": 0,
"harness_exit_code": 0,
"session_complete": true,
"agent_cuda_disabled": false,
"agent_container": true,
"agent_container_image": "nvcr.io/nvidia/tensorrt-llm/release:latest",
"agent_container_network": "bridge",
"gpu_queue_mode": "agent_container_native_profiling_path_wrapper_gpu_lock",
"output_tokens_per_second": null,
"usage": {"input_tokens": null, "output_tokens": null, "cache_read_tokens": null, "cache_creation_tokens": null, "reasoning_tokens": null, "total_cost_usd": null}
}
timeline (254 events)
system — init
session start cwd=/workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm model=deepseek-v4-pro permissions=bypassPermissions
assistant
reasoning (118 chars)
Let me start by understanding the problem and examining the reference implementation and other files in the workspace.
in 18282out 0cache_r 0cache_w 0
assistant
in 18282out 0cache_r 0cache_w 0
tool
stdout (459 chars)
total 48
drwxrwxr-x 2 1002 1002 4096 Jun 15 20:30 .
drwxrwxr-x 3 1002 1002 4096 Jun 15 20:30 ..
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1002 1002 2421 Apr 27 09:21 PROMPT.txt
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1002 1002 5146 Jun 1 21:05 benchmark.py
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1002 1002 4205 Jun 2 01:08 check.py
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1002 1002 1913 Apr 26 04:22 problem.yaml
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1002 1002 4202 Apr 26 04:25 reference.py
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1002 1002 552 Apr 26 04:22 shapes.py
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1002 1002 3734 Apr 26 04:24 sota.py
assistant
reasoning (56 chars)
Let me read all the key files to understand the problem.
in 333out 0cache_r 18304cache_w 0
assistant
in 333out 0cache_r 18304cache_w 0
tool
stdout (4546 chars) — TRUNCATED
1 """Naive W4A16 weight-only quantized GEMM reference (correctness only).
2
3 AWQ/GPTQ-style scheme:
4 x: (M, K) bf16
5 w_q: (K // 2, N) uint8 -- two int4 weights packed per byte (low nibble = even-K, high = odd-K)
6 scales: (K // group, N) bf16
7 zeros: (K // group, N) bf16 -- asymmetric (stored already as float zero-point)
8 out: (M, N) bf16
9
10 Dequant (per group along K):
11 w_bf[k, n] = (w_q[k, n] - zeros[k // group, n]) * scales[k // group, n]
12 where w_q[k, n] is the unpacked 4-bit value (0..15).
13
14 This reference unpacks to a full bf16 matrix and then runs torch.matmul. Slow and
15 memory-heavy on the dequant; the agent's solution must fuse unpack+GEMM.
16 """
17 from __future__ import annotations
18
19 import torch
20 import torch.nn as nn
21
22 OP_TYPE = "gemm_w4a16"
23 SUPPORTED_PRECISIONS = ["int4_bf16"]
24 HARDWARE_REQUIRED = ["RTX_PRO_6000", "H100", "B200"]
25
26 GROUP_SIZE = 128
27
28
29 def _pack_int4(w_q: torch.Tensor) -> torch.Tensor:
30 """Pack (K, N) uint8 in [0,15] into (K//2, N) uint8.
31
32 Even rows go in the low nibble, odd rows in the high nibble.
33 """
34 K, N = w_q.shape
35 assert K % 2 == 0
36 lo = w_q[0::2].to(torch.uint8) & 0xF
37 hi = w_q[1::2].to(torch.uint8) & 0xF
38 return (lo | (hi << 4)).contiguous()
39
40
41 def _unpack_int4(w_packed: torch.Tensor, K: int) -> torch.Tensor:
42 """Unpack (K//2, N) uint8 -> (K, N)
... (3046 more chars)
assistant
in 333out 0cache_r 18304cache_w 0
tool
stdout (4575 chars) — TRUNCATED
1 """Correctness runner for FP8 GEMM.
2
3 Runs solution.Model vs reference.Model across all shapes in shapes.py, 3 seeds
4 each, with per-dtype atol/rtol. Also rejects forbidden ops by grep.
5 """
6 import re
7 import sys
8 from pathlib import Path
9
10 import torch
11 import yaml
12
13 # Make the repo's src/ importable
14 REPO_ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[2]
15 sys.path.insert(0, str(REPO_ROOT))
16
17 from src.eval.correctness import check_correctness # noqa: E402
18 from src.eval.numeric_stress import ( # noqa: E402
19 numeric_stress_cases,
20 numeric_stress_context,
21 tolerance_for_case,
22 )
23
24
25 def main():
26 try:
27 import reference
28 import shapes
29 import solution
30 except Exception as e:
31 print(f"FAIL: import error: {e}")
32 sys.exit(1)
33
34 problem_yaml = Path("problem.yaml")
35 meta = yaml.safe_load(problem_yaml.read_text()) if problem_yaml.exists() else {}
36
37 # --- Forbidden-op check ------------------------------------------------
38 sol_src = Path("solution.py").read_text() if Path("solution.py").exists() else ""
39 for forbidden in meta.get("forbidden", []):
40 pat = re.escape(forbidden)
41 if re.search(pat, sol_src):
42 print(f"FAIL: forbidden op used: {forbidden}")
43 sys.exit(1)
44
45 device = torch.device("cuda:0")
46 tol_override = meta.get("tolerance") or None
47
48 # --- Per-shape correc
... (3075 more chars)
assistant
in 333out 0cache_r 18304cache_w 0
tool
stdout (5630 chars) — TRUNCATED
1 """Roofline benchmark for FP8 GEMM.
2
3 For each shape: times the agent's solution first. Optional eager, compiled,
4 and SOTA diagnostics are enabled with KBH_BENCHMARK_BASELINES=1. Reports achieved TFLOPS, GB/s, and peak_fraction.
5
6 Output lines the harness picks up:
7 shape=<idx> variant=<name> tflops=<N> gbps=<N> ms=<N>
8 peak_fraction: <N> (geomean over shapes of solution's peak_fraction)
9 """
10 import sys
11 from math import exp, log
12 from pathlib import Path
13
14 import torch
15 import yaml
16
17 REPO_ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[2]
18 sys.path.insert(0, str(REPO_ROOT))
19
20 from src.eval.roofline import compute_gbps, compute_tflops, peak_fraction # noqa: E402
21 from src.eval.timing import benchmark_baselines_enabled, time_variant # noqa: E402
22 from src.hardware import get as get_hw # noqa: E402
23
24
25 def _eval_formula(expr: str, vars: dict) -> float:
26 # Very small eval: only names from `vars` are valid.
27 return float(eval(expr, {"__builtins__": {}}, vars))
28
29
30 def main():
31 import reference
32 import shapes
33 import solution
34
35 meta = yaml.safe_load(Path("problem.yaml").read_text())
36 hw = get_hw(meta["hardware"][0])
37 peak_tflops = hw.peak_tflops_dense.get(meta["peak_tflops_key"], 0.0)
38 peak_gbps = hw.peak_bandwidth_gb_s
39 regime = meta.get("regime", "compute")
40 flops_formula = meta["flops_formula"]
41 bytes_formula = meta["bytes_formula"]
42 num_perf
... (4130 more chars)
assistant
in 333out 0cache_r 18304cache_w 0
tool
stdout (585 chars)
1 """Shape sweep for W4A16 GEMM.
2
3 Llama-style up_proj / qkv_proj shapes. Decode (M=1) is the bandwidth-bound
4 case every inference engine optimizes -- it's the bar to beat.
5 """
6
7 SHAPES = [
8 {"M": 1, "N": 12288, "K": 4096}, # decode: memory-bound on int4 weight read
9 {"M": 32, "N": 12288, "K": 4096}, # small prefill: mixed regime
10 {"M": 256, "N": 12288, "K": 4096}, # larger prefill: approaching compute
11 {"M": 1, "N": 4096, "K": 4096}, # decode: square shape
12 {"M": 16, "N": 14336, "K": 4096}, # speculative-decode-ish
13 ]
14
assistant
in 333out 0cache_r 18304cache_w 0
tool
stdout (3989 chars) — TRUNCATED
1 """SOTA reference for W4A16 GEMM.
2
3 Library survey on RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (SM120, CC 12.0):
4
5 - Marlin (IST-DASLab): no SM120 kernels (Ampere/Hopper only). Skip.
6 - GPTQ-Triton (fpgaminer): unmaintained; pure Triton path works on SM120
7 but is not faster than Marlin on its target HW
8 and has no Blackwell tuning. Skip as primary.
9 - AWQ (mit-han-lab/llm-awq): CUDA kernels not built for SM120 in the wheel.
10 Skip.
11 - bitsandbytes >= 0.49.2: CUDA kernels compile and run on SM120 (verified
12 on this machine). Different quant scheme (NF4,
13 symmetric, blocksize 64) than our reference's
14 AWQ-style asymmetric INT4 with group_size 128,
15 but it occupies the same memory regime and is
16 the only tuned W4A16-class kernel that runs on
17 SM120 today. Used here as an *informational*
18 SOTA line, not as a numerical reference.
19
20 The benchmark calls `sota_forward(x, ref_model)` and times it; correctness is
21 NOT checked against this path (the quant scheme differs).
22 """
23 from __future__ import annotations
24
25 import torch
26
27 _BNB_OK: bool | None = None
28
29
30 def is_available() -> bool:
31 gl
... (2489 more chars)
assistant
in 333out 0cache_r 18304cache_w 0
tool
stdout (2054 chars) — TRUNCATED
1 name: 07_w4a16_gemm
2 display_name: "W4A16 Weight-only Quantized GEMM"
3 precision: int4_bf16
4 regime: memory # decode-dominant; M=1 is bandwidth-bound on the int4 weight stream
5
6 # Dense-equivalent FLOPs (matmul work, ignoring dequant arithmetic).
7 flops_formula: "2 * M * N * K"
8
9 # Bytes moved per call (memory roofline):
10 # x: M*K*2 (bf16 activations, streamed in once)
11 # w_q: (K/2)*N (packed int4, 0.5 B/elem)
12 # scales: (K/128)*N*2 (bf16 scales)
13 # zeros: (K/128)*N*2 (bf16 zero-points)
14 # out: M*N*2 (bf16 store)
15 bytes_formula: "M*K*2 + (K/2)*N + (K/128)*N*2 + (K/128)*N*2 + M*N*2"
16
17 hardware: [RTX_PRO_6000]
18 peak_tflops_key: bf16
19 peak_bandwidth_key: dram
20
21 tolerance:
22 bfloat16: 0.10 # group-quant adds noise on top of bf16 accumulator slop
23
24 # Forbidden ops -- agent must write the unpack + GEMM themselves, not call a
25 # vendor library that does both.
26 forbidden:
27 - "bitsandbytes.functional.dequantize_4bit"
28 - "bitsandbytes.functional.gemv_4bit"
29 - "marlin_kernel.gemm"
30 - "torch.nn.functional.linear"
31
32 sota:
33 name: "bitsandbytes NF4 (gemv_4bit / dequantize_4bit + matmul)"
34 url: "https://github.com/TimDettmers/bitsandbytes"
35 function: "bitsandbytes.functional.gemv_4bit"
36 notes: |
37 Marlin (IST-DASLab) is the W4A16 SOTA on Ampere/Hopper but does not have
38 SM120 (Blackwell consumer) kernels yet. GPTQ-Triton is unmaintained and
... (554 more chars)
assistant
in 333out 0cache_r 18304cache_w 0
tool
stdout (2423 chars) — TRUNCATED
1 I need you to write a weight-only int4 quantized GEMM (W4A16) for the RTX PRO 6000 (SM120 Blackwell, GDDR7, 1.8 TB/s). The reference implementation is in reference.py and your kernel goes in solution.py. You can make whatever mess you want in this directory — scratch files, intermediate kernels, build artifacts, profiling traces — but the final answer has to be in solution.py with the same Model, get_inputs, and get_init_inputs interface as reference.py.
2
3 The scheme is AWQ/GPTQ-style asymmetric int4 with explicit zero-points and per-group bf16 scales. Inputs are x of shape (M, K) bf16, w_q of shape (K // 2, N) uint8 (two int4 weights packed per byte, low nibble = even-K row, high nibble = odd-K row), scales of shape (K // 128, N) bf16, and zeros of shape (K // 128, N) bf16. Group size is 128 along K. Dequant per group is w_bf[k, n] = (unpack(w_q)[k, n] - zeros[k // 128, n]) * scales[k // 128, n], and the output is (M, N) bf16. Correctness tolerance is 0.10 abs/rel — group-quant adds noise on top of bf16 accumulator slop. The shapes you have to handle are M=1 N=12288 K=4096 (decode, memory-bound on the int4 weight read), M=32 N=12288 K=4096 (small prefill, mixed regime), M=256 N=12288 K=4096 (larger prefill, approaching compute-bound), M=1 N=4096 K=4096 (decode, square), and M=16 N=14336 K=4096 (speculative-decode-ish).
4
5 This needs to be a real custom kernel that fuses unpack and GEMM in the same pass — a separate dequant-then-matmul wastes the entire bandwidth advan
... (923 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (18353 chars)
Let me understand the problem comprehensively:
1. **Goal**: Write a fused W4A16 (weight-only int4 quantized) GEMM kernel for RTX PRO 6000 (Blackwell SM120).
2. **Scheme**: AWQ/GPTQ-style asymmetric int4 with explicit zero-points and per-group bf16 scales.
3. **Group size**: 128 along K dimension.
4. **Shapes**: Various decode/prefill shapes (M=1 to M=256).
5. **Requirements**: Must fuse unpack + GEMM, not just dequant then matmul.
6. **Forbidden**: bitsandbytes.functional.dequantize_4bit, gemv_4bit, marlin_kernel.gemm, torch.nn.functional.linear.
Let me think about what approach to take:
**RTX PRO 6000 = Blackwell SM120 = compute capability 12.0**
Options:
1. **Triton kernel**: Write a Triton kernel with fused dequant. Triton supports Blackwell now. This is probably the most practical approach for a custom kernel.
2. **CUDA C++ via load_inline**: The most flexible, but requires deep CUDA knowledge.
3. **Inline PTX**: Very low-level, hard to get right.
Given the constraints and the need for performance, I'll try a **Triton kernel** approach first. Triton can fuse the dequantization into the compute, and with proper tuning can approach close to memory bandwidth limits.
Key performance considerations:
- For M=1 (decode), this is memory-bound on the weight read. The packed int4 weights are (K/2 * N) bytes = 4096/2 * 12288 = ~25 MB. At 1.8 TB/s, the theoretical lower bound is ~14 µs. Realistically, we need to saturate the memory bandwidth.
- For larger M (prefill), it becomes more compute-bound.
The Triton approach:
- Write a fused kernel that loads packed int4 weights, unpacks them, dequantizes with scales/zeros, and accumulates into the output.
- Use block-level parallelism: tile over M (batch) and N (output columns).
- K dimension is reduced with block-wise accumulation.
Let me think about the Triton kernel design more carefully:
For W4A16 GEMM with Triton:
- Each program loads a tile of x (M_tile x K_tile) and a tile of packed weights (K_tile/2 x N_tile)
- Unpack the weight tile, apply scales/zeros
- Accumulate dot product
- Output (M_tile x N_tile)
But wait — Triton's `tl.dot` expects specific input formats. For Blackwell (SM120), Triton might support different data types.
Actually, let me reconsider. The key challenge is that int4 isn't natively supported by Triton's `tl.dot`. We'd need to unpack to a wider type first, then use `tl.dot`.
Let me think about what data types Triton supports for dot products:
- fp16, bf16, fp32, tf32, int8, etc.
- Not int4 directly.
So the approach would be:
1. Load packed uint8 weights
2. Unpack to int8 or bf16
3. Apply dequant (subtract zeros, multiply by scales) to get bf16
4. Use tl.dot with bf16 inputs
But this means we're doing the same amount of compute as a bf16 matmul, just with less memory traffic. The key value is the bandwidth savings from reading int4 weights instead of bf16 weights.
Wait, actually there's a subtlety. If we dequant to bf16 and then do tl.dot, we're paying the full compute cost of bf16 matmul. But we save 4x on weight memory bandwidth. For decode (M=1, memory-bound), this is a big win. For larger M, the compute savings would matter more.
Actually, for really fusing it, we could try to use integer dot product instructions if available on Blackwell. But that gets complex.
Let me think about what would actually be fast:
**Approach 1: Triton kernel with fused dequant to bf16, then tl.dot**
- Loads int4 weights, unpacks to bf16 (fused dequant), does tl.dot with bf16
- Simple, clean, should work
- Memory-bound savings from 4x less weight data
- For compute-bound shapes, this does bf16 compute, which is fine on Blackwell (it has lots of bf16 throughput)
**Approach 2: CUDA C++ with tensor core int4 instructions**
- Blackwell (SM120) might have special int4 tensor core instructions
- This would be faster but much harder to implement
**Approach 3: PTX with mma instructions**
- Direct tensor core programming
- Very complex
Let me start with **Triton** as it's the most practical and well-supported on Blackwell. Triton has been actively supporting Blackwell GPUs.
Let me write a Triton kernel that:
1. Takes x (M, K) bf16, w_q (K//2, N) uint8, scales (K//128, N) bf16, zeros (K//128, N) bf16
2. For each program (pid_m, pid_n):
- Load tile of x: (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) bf16
- Load tile of w_q: (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N) uint8
- Unpack to (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N)
- Broadcast scales/zeros from group level
- Dequant: (w_unpacked - zeros) * scales → bf16
- Accumulate with tl.dot
Wait, there's a complexity. The group structure means scales/zeros are per group of 128 along K. Within a BLOCK_K tile (which crosses multiple groups), we need different scales/zeros for different K positions.
Let me think about this more carefully.
The packed weight layout:
- w_q shape: (K//2, N) uint8
- Low nibble = even K rows, high nibble = odd K rows
- scales shape: (K//128, N) bf16
- zeros shape: (K//128, N) bf16
For a given weight element at (k, n):
- group_id = k // 128
- w_deq = (unpack(w_q[k, n]) - zeros[group_id, n]) * scales[group_id, n]
In Triton, when I load a tile of w_q at positions [k_start:k_start+BLOCK_K, n_start:n_start+BLOCK_N], I need to know the group for each k position.
Let me plan the kernel:
```python
@triton.jit
def gemm_w4a16_kernel(
x_ptr, w_q_ptr, scales_ptr, zeros_ptr, out_ptr,
M, N, K,
stride_xm, stride_xk,
stride_wq_kh, stride_wq_n,
stride_s_g, stride_s_n,
stride_z_g, stride_z_n,
stride_om, stride_on,
GROUP_SIZE_M: tl.constexpr,
BLOCK_SIZE_M: tl.constexpr,
BLOCK_SIZE_N: tl.constexpr,
BLOCK_SIZE_K: tl.constexpr,
):
pid = tl.program_id(0)
num_pid_m = tl.cdiv(M, BLOCK_SIZE_M)
num_pid_n = tl.cdiv(N, BLOCK_SIZE_N)
pid_m = pid // num_pid_n
pid_n = pid % num_pid_n
# Ranges for this block
offs_m = pid_m * BLOCK_SIZE_M + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_SIZE_M)
offs_n = pid_n * BLOCK_SIZE_N + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_SIZE_N)
offs_k = tl.arange(0, BLOCK_SIZE_K)
# Masks
mask_m = offs_m < M
mask_n = offs_n < N
# Accumulator
acc = tl.zeros((BLOCK_SIZE_M, BLOCK_SIZE_N), dtype=tl.float32)
for k_start in range(0, K, BLOCK_SIZE_K):
k_offs = k_start + offs_k
mask_k = k_offs < K
# Load x tile: (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K)
x_ptrs = x_ptr + offs_m[:, None] * stride_xm + k_offs[None, :] * stride_xk
x = tl.load(x_ptrs, mask=mask_m[:, None] & mask_k[None, :], other=0.0)
# Load packed weights: (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N)
# Each byte contains 2 int4 weights
k_half = k_offs // 2 # indices into the packed dimension
wq_ptrs = w_q_ptr + k_half[:, None] * stride_wq_kh + offs_n[None, :] * stride_wq_n
# ... this gets tricky because we need to handle even/odd K
# Actually, let me reconsider the approach.
```
Hmm, this is getting complex. Let me think about a cleaner approach.
Actually, for Triton, a cleaner approach might be:
1. Load a block of packed weights
2. Unpack them in registers
3. Apply dequant
4. Do tl.dot
For the unpacking, I need to handle the nibble extraction within Triton.
Let me think about what's actually efficient. In Triton, `tl.load` is the fundamental operation. I can load uint8 data. Then I need to extract low and high nibbles.
```python
# Load packed as uint8, then extract nibbles
w_packed = tl.load(wq_ptrs, mask=..., other=0) # shape (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N), uint8
w_lo = w_packed & 0x0F # even rows, but these are uint8
w_hi = (w_packed >> 4) & 0x0F # odd rows, but these are uint8
# Now I need to interleave them: w_unpacked[k, n] = w_lo if k even else w_hi
# But the structure is: w_packed[k//2, n] gives lo at even k, hi at odd k
# So for k in 0..BLOCK_K-1:
# if k % 2 == 0: w_unpacked[k, n] = w_packed[k//2, n] & 0xF
# else: w_unpacked[k, n] = w_packed[k//2, n] >> 4
```
This interleaving is a bit annoying in Triton. Let me think...
Actually, I can use tl.view or reshaping. Or I can just handle even and odd rows separately in the accumulation.
Wait, let me think about this differently. The key insight is that each byte in w_q gives us two int4 values. If I'm doing a dot product, I can process even and odd K rows separately:
```python
for k_half in range(0, K//2, BLOCK_SIZE_K//2):
# Load even rows of X (indices 2*k_half, 2*k_half+2, ...)
# Load odd rows of X (indices 2*k_half+1, 2*k_half+3, ...)
# Load w_packed (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N)
# w_lo for even rows, w_hi for odd rows
# Dequant separately
# Accumulate
```
Actually, I think the cleanest approach is to restructure the unpacking in Triton. Let me use a 2-step approach in the K loop:
For each K block:
1. Load w_packed[BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N] as uint8
2. Extract low nibbles (even K) into w_even[BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N]
3. Extract high nibbles (odd K) into w_odd[BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N]
4. Load x_even and x_odd
5. Compute group indices for even and odd K positions
6. Load scales/zeros for those groups
7. Dequant: w_even_deq = (w_even - zero_even) * scale_even, w_odd_deq = (w_odd - zero_odd) * scale_odd
8. acc += tl.dot(x_even, w_even_deq) + tl.dot(x_odd, w_odd_deq)
This gets complex with the group structure (group_size=128 along K). Each BLOCK_K//2 even-row group might span multiple quantization groups.
Hmm, let me take a step back and think about what makes this fast.
For the memory-bound case (M=1, decode), the bottleneck is reading the weights. The key optimization is:
1. Read packed int4 weights (4x less data than bf16)
2. Unpack and dequant on the fly in registers
3. Keep the accumulator in registers
The compute pattern is essentially a vector-matrix product for M=1, or a small matrix-matrix product for larger M.
Actually, let me think about what Triton does under the hood. `tl.dot` on Blackwell uses tensor cores (mma instructions). The inputs to mma need to be in specific formats. For bf16, the inputs are bf16 and the accumulator is f32.
So the plan is:
1. Load packed weights as uint8
2. Unpack, dequant to bf16
3. Use tl.dot with bf16 x and bf16 dequantized weights
4. Store bf16 output
This should work and be reasonably fast. The key bandwidth savings come from step 1 (reading 4x less weight data).
Let me now write the actual kernel. I'll need to be careful with:
- The group structure (group_size=128 along K)
- Proper masking
- Efficient memory access patterns
Actually wait — I realize there's a much cleaner approach. Instead of interleaving even/odd in the K loop, I can restructure the packed weights by pre-processing them. But the problem says I need to fuse unpack and GEMM...
OK let me just write the Triton kernel. The key complexity is handling the unpacking within the K loop. Here's my plan:
For each K block of size BLOCK_K:
- I need to handle BLOCK_K//2 packed bytes, each giving 2 weight values
- The even K positions (0, 2, 4, ..., BLOCK_K-2) come from low nibbles
- The odd K positions (1, 3, 5, ..., BLOCK_K-1) come from high nibbles
I can load the packed bytes once, extract both nibbles, and then do two separate dot products (one for even K positions, one for odd K positions).
Actually, you know what, let me think about this even more carefully. In the Triton matmul tutorial, they use `tl.dot` which expects the K dimension to be the inner dimension of both matrices. If I have:
- x: (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) bf16
- w_deq: (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N) bf16
Then `tl.dot(x, w_deq)` gives (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N) f32.
The complexity is that w_deq isn't stored contiguously — I need to construct it from packed uint8 + scales + zeros. Let me just construct the dequantized weight tile in Triton.
```python
# For each k in the block, group_id = k_abs // 128
# For a given (k_abs, n) position:
# w_byte = w_q[k_abs // 2, n]
# w_int4 = (w_byte >> (4 * (k_abs % 2))) & 0xF # low nibble for even k, high for odd k
# w_deq = (float(w_int4) - zeros[k_abs // 128, n]) * scales[k_abs // 128, n]
```
In Triton, I'd need to:
1. Load w_packed for the K block and N block
2. Extract even and odd nibbles
3. Load scales/zeros for the groups spanned by this K block
4. Broadcast scales/zeros to the K dimension
5. Compute w_deq as bf16
6. Do tl.dot
Let me implement this step by step.
For step 2-5, a key efficiency consideration: within a BLOCK_K=128 block, there are at most 2 groups (if BLOCK_K=128, exactly 1 group fits, but if BLOCK_K > 128, multiple groups). Let me pick BLOCK_K=128 to keep things simple — then each K block corresponds to exactly one group, and scales/zeros are constant within the block.
Wait, but BLOCK_K=128 means I'm loading 64 packed bytes per N column, which is 64*BLOCK_N bytes. That's a lot of data per iteration. Let me think about what block sizes make sense.
For the small M case (decode, M=1), I want:
- BLOCK_M = 1 (or a small value)
- BLOCK_N = 64, 128, or 256
- BLOCK_K = 128 (one group) or 64 (half a group)
For larger M, I want:
- BLOCK_M = 16, 32, or 64
- BLOCK_N = 64 or 128
- BLOCK_K = 64 or 128
Actually, let me reconsider. BLOCK_K doesn't need to be 128. I can handle partial groups too. Within a K block that spans part of a group, the scale/zero is constant. If a K block spans a group boundary, I'd need multiple scale/zero values.
Let me make BLOCK_K = 64 for simplicity. Then within BLOCK_K=64, I'm always within a single group (since group_size=128). Wait, actually 64 < 128, so yes, always within one group. But the group boundary could fall in the middle of a 64-element block if the starting K position is, say, 100. Then positions 100-127 are in group 0 and 128-163 are in group 1.
For maximum simplicity, let me use BLOCK_K = 128. Then each K tile is exactly one group, and scales/zeros are constant within the tile. This makes the dequant very clean.
Actually wait, if K=4096 and group_size=128, then K is perfectly divisible by 128. And if BLOCK_K=128, each K block maps exactly to one group. So within each K tile:
- group_id = k_start // 128
- scale = scales[group_id, n] (same for all k in tile)
- zero = zeros[group_id, n] (same for all k in tile)
This is very clean! Let me use this approach.
With BLOCK_K = 128:
- w_packed tile: (64, BLOCK_N) uint8
- Each byte gives 2 int4 values: even and odd
- After unpacking: (128, BLOCK_N) int4
- Dequant: (w_int4 - zero[1, BLOCK_N]) * scale[1, BLOCK_N] → (128, BLOCK_N) bf16
For the unpacking in Triton:
```python
w_packed = tl.load(wq_ptrs) # (64, BLOCK_N) uint8 → actually, Triton loads as specific dtype
# Extract nibbles
w_even = (w_packed & 0x0F).to(tl.float32) # (64, BLOCK_N) - these are the even K rows
w_odd = ((w_packed >> 4) & 0x0F).to(tl.float32) # (64, BLOCK_N) - odd K rows
# Load scales and zeros for this group
group_id = k_start // 128
scale = tl.load(scales_ptr + group_id * stride_s_g + offs_n * stride_s_n) # (BLOCK_N,) bf16
zero = tl.load(zeros_ptr + group_id * stride_z_g + offs_n * stride_z_n) # (BLOCK_N,) bf16
# Dequant to bf16
w_even_bf = ((w_even - zero[None, :]) * scale[None, :]).to(tl.bfloat16) # (64, BLOCK_N)
w_odd_bf = ((w_odd - zero[None, :]) * scale[None, :]).to(tl.bfloat16) # (64, BLOCK_N)
# For the even K rows of x and odd K rows of x
x_even = ... # x[:, k_start : k_start+128 : 2] → (BLOCK_M, 64)
x_odd = ... # x[:, k_start+1 : k_start+128 : 2] → (BLOCK_M, 64)
# Accumulate
acc += tl.dot(x_even, w_even_bf) + tl.dot(x_odd, w_odd_bf)
```
Hmm wait, but the issue is that w_even and w_odd are each (64, BLOCK_N) in the K dimension. The dot product `tl.dot(x_even, w_even_bf)` where x_even is (BLOCK_M, 64) and w_even_bf is (64, BLOCK_N) should work fine.
But actually, I'm not sure Triton handles the even/odd stride correctly in tl.load for the x tensor with stride 2. Let me think...
I can use `tl.arange(0, 64) * 2` for even indices and `tl.arange(0, 64) * 2 + 1` for odd indices. Something like:
```python
k_offs_even = k_start + tl.arange(0, 64) * 2
k_offs_odd = k_start + tl.arange(0, 64) * 2 + 1
x_even_ptrs = x_ptr + offs_m[:, None] * stride_xm + k_offs_even[None, :] * stride_xk
x_odd_ptrs = x_ptr + offs_m[:, None] * stride_xm + k_offs_odd[None, :] * stride_xk
x_even = tl.load(x_even_ptrs, mask=..., other=0.0)
x_odd = tl.load(x_odd_ptrs, mask=..., other=0.0)
```
This should work. The mask for k needs to be `k_offs_even < K`, etc.
OK, let me now think about what block sizes and grid sizes to use. Let me start with a simple version and tune from there.
Actually, on second thought, let me reconsider whether Triton is the best approach here. Let me check what CUDA tools and Triton version are available.
Let me first check the environment, then write the kernel, test it, and iterate.
Actually, I realize I should just start writing and testing. Let me check the environment first, then write the Triton kernel.
One more thing - let me think about the performance. For the decode case (M=1, N=12288, K=4096):
- Int4 weight data: K/2 * N = 2048 * 12288 = ~25 MB
- Scales: K/128 * N * 2 = 32 * 12288 * 2 = ~786 KB
- Zeros: same = ~786 KB
- X input: M * K * 2 = 1 * 4096 * 2 = ~8 KB
- Output: M * N * 2 = 1 * 12288 * 2 = ~24 KB
Total memory traffic ≈ ~26.6 MB per call.
At 1.8 TB/s, theoretical minimum time = 26.6 MB / 1.8 TB/s ≈ 14.8 µs
Dense FLOPs: 2 * 1 * 12288 * 4096 = ~100 MFLOPs = 0.1 GFLOPs
So this is purely bandwidth-bound. The goal is to get as close to memory bandwidth as possible.
2 * M * N * K FLOPs would be 2 * 1 * 12288 * 4096 = 100,663,296 FLOPs ≈ 0.1 GFLOPS.
At 1.8 TB/s bandwidth, we can do at most 1.8e12 / 26.6e6 ≈ 67,669 calls/second, or 14.8 µs per call.
For the compute-bound case (M=256, N=12288, K=4096):
FLOPs: 2 * 256 * 12288 * 4096 = ~25.8 GFLOPS
Memory: 256*4096*2 + 2048*12288 + 32*12288*2*2 + 256*12288*2 ≈ 2.1MB + 25.2MB + 1.6MB + 6.3MB ≈ 35.2 MB
At compute peak of ~125 TFLOPS (bf16 on RTX PRO 6000), time = 25.8 GFLOPS / 125 TFLOPS ≈ 206 µs
At memory peak, time = 35.2 MB / 1.8 TB/s ≈ 19.6 µs
So this is still memory-bound actually. The compute bound is higher than memory bound.
Wait, let me reconsider. RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell compute:
- BF16 tensor core throughput: the Blackwell architecture has substantial improvements
- For SM120, peak bf16 TFLOPS might be around 100-200 TFLOPS
Let me not get too caught up in the roofline analysis and just write the kernel.
Let me start by checking the environment and then implement the Triton kernel.
in 7435out 0cache_r 18944cache_w 0
assistant
Let me start by exploring the environment and understanding what's available.
in 7435out 0cache_r 18944cache_w 0
assistant
in 7435out 0cache_r 18944cache_w 0
assistant
in 7435out 0cache_r 18944cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (873 chars)
nvcc: NVIDIA (R) Cuda compiler driver
Copyright (c) 2005-2026 NVIDIA Corporation
Built on Mon_Mar_02_09:52:23_PM_PST_2026
Cuda compilation tools, release 13.2, V13.2.51
Build cuda_13.2.r13.2/compiler.37434383_0
---
Python 3.12.3
---
Using CPython 3.11.15
Creating virtual environment at: /workspace/.venv
Building kernelbench-hard @ file:///workspace
Built kernelbench-hard @ file:///workspace
warning: Failed to hardlink files; falling back to full copy. This may lead to degraded performance.
If the cache and target directories are on different filesystems, hardlinking may not be supported.
If this is intentional, set `export UV_LINK_MODE=copy` or use `--link-mode=copy` to suppress this warning.
Installed 56 packages in 881ms
PyTorch 2.11.0+cu130
CUDA 13.0
GPU: NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation Edition
Compute capability: (12, 0)
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
assistant
reasoning (306 chars)
Good. So we have:
- PyTorch 2.11.0 with CUDA 13.0
- Triton 3.6.0
- RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (compute capability 12.0)
Triton 3.6.0 should have good Blackwell support. Let me now write the Triton kernel for W4A16 GEMM.
Let me also check what `uv run` looks like and verify check.py works with the reference.
in 6389out 0cache_r 26368cache_w 0
assistant
in 6389out 0cache_r 26368cache_w 0
tool
stderr (58 chars)
Exit code 1
FAIL: import error: No module named 'solution'
assistant
in 6389out 0cache_r 26368cache_w 0
tool
stderr (1571 chars) — TRUNCATED
Exit code 1
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/runtime/jit.py", line 461, in __init__
self.raw_src, self.starting_line_number = inspect.getsourcelines(fn)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/uv-cache/python/cpython-3.11.15-linux-x86_64-gnu/lib/python3.11/inspect.py", line 1240, in getsourcelines
lines, lnum = findsource(object)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/uv-cache/python/cpython-3.11.15-linux-x86_64-gnu/lib/python3.11/inspect.py", line 1077, in findsource
raise OSError('could not get source code')
OSError: could not get source code
The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<string>", line 12, in <module>
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/runtime/jit.py", line 935, in jit
return decorator(fn)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/runtime/jit.py", line 923, in decorator
return JITFunction(
^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/runtime/jit.py", line 756, in __init__
super().__init__(fn)
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/runtime/jit.py", line 463, in __init__
raise ValueError("@jit functions should be defined in a Python file") from e
ValueError: @jit functions should be defined in a Python file
Triton version: 3
... (71 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (12442 chars)
OK, Triton requires jit functions to be defined in a file, not in inline code. That's fine. Let me now write the solution.
Let me think about the approach more carefully.
For the Triton kernel approach, I need to:
1. Write a Triton kernel that loads packed uint8 weights, unpacks them, applies dequant (subtract zeros, multiply by scales), and then does tl.dot with the bf16 activations.
2. Handle all the shapes in shapes.py.
3. Pass check.py.
Key design decisions:
- BLOCK_K should be 128 (matching group_size) for simplicity - this way each K tile is within a single quantization group.
- BLOCK_M and BLOCK_N should be tuned per shape.
- For M=1 (decode), we want very small BLOCK_M and larger BLOCK_N.
- For larger M, we want larger BLOCK_M.
Let me think about the tile sizes:
- For decode (M=1): BLOCK_M=1, BLOCK_N=64 or 128, BLOCK_K=128
- For prefill (M=256): BLOCK_M=64, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128
Actually, let me think about what's efficient on Blackwell. Blackwell tensor cores with bf16 input should support mma instructions with specific tile sizes. In Triton, the underlying mma instruction determines what tile sizes are efficient.
Actually, for simplicity, let me just use reasonable block sizes and see if it works. I can auto-tune later.
Let me now write the kernel:
```python
@triton.jit
def gemm_w4a16_kernel(
x_ptr, w_q_ptr, scales_ptr, zeros_ptr, out_ptr,
M, N, K,
stride_xm, stride_xk,
stride_wq_kh, stride_wq_n,
stride_s_g, stride_s_n,
stride_z_g, stride_z_n,
stride_om, stride_on,
BLOCK_M: tl.constexpr, BLOCK_N: tl.constexpr, BLOCK_K: tl.constexpr,
GROUP_SIZE_M: tl.constexpr,
):
```
Wait, I should think about this more carefully. Let me think about what happens in the K loop with group_size=128 and BLOCK_K=128.
For each K block (128 consecutive K indices, starting at k_start):
- k_start is always a multiple of 128
- So group_id = k_start // 128 is constant within this block
- scale[group_id, :] and zero[group_id, :] are vectors of length N
Within the K block:
- We load w_packed[k_start//2 : k_start//2 + 64, n_start:n_start+BLOCK_N] as uint8
- Low nibble of w_packed[kh, n] is the int4 weight at K=2*kh, N=n
- High nibble of w_packed[kh, n] is the int4 weight at K=2*kh+1, N=n
So for the dot product:
- Even K rows of x: x[:, k_start : k_start+128 : 2] → (BLOCK_M, 64)
- Odd K rows of x: x[:, k_start+1 : k_start+128 : 2] → (BLOCK_M, 64)
- Even K rows of dequantized w: (w_lo - zero_group) * scale_group → (64, BLOCK_N)
- Odd K rows of dequantized w: (w_hi - zero_group) * scale_group → (64, BLOCK_N)
acc += tl.dot(x_even, w_even_deq) + tl.dot(x_odd, w_odd_deq)
This should work!
Now let me think about the grid. The grid should cover:
- M dimension: ceil(M / BLOCK_M)
- N dimension: ceil(N / BLOCK_N)
I'll use a 1D grid with program_id mapping to (pid_m, pid_n).
Let me now implement this properly.
Actually, wait. Let me reconsider whether BLOCK_K=128 is too large for certain cases. If K=4096, there are 32 blocks of 128, which is fine. The main concern is register pressure from holding a (64, BLOCK_N) weight tile in registers. With BLOCK_N=64, that's 64*64=4096 int4 values (or 2048 bytes in bf16). Should be manageable.
For BLOCK_N=128, that's 64*128=8192 int4 values → 16384 bytes in bf16. Might be a lot of registers, but should still work with proper pipelining.
Let me go with moderate block sizes first and tune later.
For the first version:
- BLOCK_M = 16, BLOCK_N = 64, BLOCK_K = 128
This should work for all shapes. The grid will be small for M=1 (grid has ceil(1/16)=1 x ceil(N/64) programs).
Let me also handle the case where M < BLOCK_M (common for decode with M=1). The mask handles this.
Now let me write the full solution.py.
One more thing to consider: the `get_inputs` and `get_init_inputs` functions use module-level M, N, K variables (like in reference.py). These are set by check.py and benchmark.py before calling these functions.
Also, the Model class needs to accept the same __init__ args as reference.Model.
Let me write solution.py now.
Actually, I realize there might be an issue with `uv run python` vs `python`. The instructions say to use `uv run python`. But `check.py` seems to just use `python`. Let me check what `check.py` expects and make sure my solution can be imported.
Looking at check.py:
```python
import reference
import shapes
import solution
```
It imports these as modules. So solution.py just needs to be importable.
Let me now write the kernel. I'll use Triton with auto-tuning for the best block sizes.
Actually wait, for auto-tuning I need to define the kernel outside the class. Let me structure it properly.
Here's my plan for solution.py:
```python
"""W4A16 weight-only quantized GEMM kernel using Triton with fused unpack+dequant."""
import torch
import torch.nn as nn
import triton
import triton.language as tl
GROUP_SIZE = 128
@triton.jit
def gemm_w4a16_kernel(...):
# Kernel implementation
...
@triton.autotune(
configs=[...],
key=['M', 'N', 'K'],
)
@triton.jit
def gemm_w4a16_kernel_autotuned(...):
# Wrapper that calls the main kernel
...
class Model(nn.Module):
def __init__(self, M, N, K, group_size=GROUP_SIZE):
...
def forward(self, x):
# Call the Triton kernel
...
# Module-level variables (like reference.py)
M = 1
N = 12288
K = 4096
def get_inputs():
x = torch.randn(M, K, dtype=torch.bfloat16)
return [x]
def get_init_inputs():
return [M, N, K]
```
Let me now think about an important detail: the memory layout.
In reference.py:
- x shape: (M, K) bf16, row-major
- w_q shape: (K//2, N) uint8, row-major
- scales shape: (K//128, N) bf16, row-major
- zeros shape: (K//128, N) bf16, row-major
- output shape: (M, N) bf16, row-major
For the Triton kernel, I need to handle strides correctly:
- x: stride_xm = K (since x[m, k] is at offset m*K + k)
- w_q: stride_wq_kh = N (since w_q[kh, n] is at offset kh*N + n)
- scales: stride_s_g = N (since scales[g, n] is at offset g*N + n)
- zeros: stride_z_g = N
- out: stride_om = N
Let me now write the actual kernel implementation.
The tricky part is the unpacking within Triton. Let me think about this...
In Triton, I can load uint8 data using `tl.load` with pointer arithmetic. But I need to be careful with masking.
For the weight load:
```python
# k_half indices: k_start//2 + [0, 1, ..., 63] (for BLOCK_K=128)
k_half_base = k_start // 2
k_half_offs = k_half_base + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K // 2)
# n indices: n_start + [0, 1, ..., BLOCK_N-1]
n_offs = n_start + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_N)
# Load packed weights
wq_ptrs = w_q_ptr + k_half_offs[:, None] * stride_wq_kh + n_offs[None, :] * stride_wq_n
w_packed = tl.load(wq_ptrs, mask=(k_half_offs[:, None] < K // 2) & (n_offs[None, :] < N), other=0)
# w_packed shape: (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N) uint8
```
Then extract nibbles:
```python
w_lo = w_packed & 0x0F # Even K rows, still uint8
w_hi = (w_packed >> 4) & 0x0F # Odd K rows, still uint8
```
Convert to float32 for dequant:
```python
w_lo_f32 = w_lo.to(tl.float32) # (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N)
w_hi_f32 = w_hi.to(tl.float32) # (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N)
```
Load scales and zeros for this group:
```python
group_id = k_start // GROUP_SIZE
s_ptrs = scales_ptr + group_id * stride_s_g + n_offs * stride_s_n
z_ptrs = zeros_ptr + group_id * stride_z_g + n_offs * stride_z_n
scales_g = tl.load(s_ptrs, mask=n_offs < N, other=0.0) # (BLOCK_N,) bf16
zeros_g = tl.load(z_ptrs, mask=n_offs < N, other=0.0) # (BLOCK_N,) bf16
```
Dequant:
```python
w_even_bf = ((w_lo_f32 - zeros_g[None, :]) * scales_g[None, :]).to(tl.bfloat16) # (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N)
w_odd_bf = ((w_hi_f32 - zeros_g[None, :]) * scales_g[None, :]).to(tl.bfloat16) # (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N)
```
Load x even and odd:
```python
k_even_offs = k_start + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K // 2) * 2
k_odd_offs = k_start + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K // 2) * 2 + 1
x_even_ptrs = x_ptr + m_offs[:, None] * stride_xm + k_even_offs[None, :] * stride_xk
x_odd_ptrs = x_ptr + m_offs[:, None] * stride_xm + k_odd_offs[None, :] * stride_xk
x_even = tl.load(x_even_ptrs, mask=(m_offs[:, None] < M) & (k_even_offs[None, :] < K), other=0.0)
x_odd = tl.load(x_odd_ptrs, mask=(m_offs[:, None] < M) & (k_odd_offs[None, :] < K), other=0.0)
```
Accumulate:
```python
acc += tl.dot(x_even, w_even_bf) # (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K/2) @ (BLOCK_K/2, BLOCK_N) = (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N)
acc += tl.dot(x_odd, w_odd_bf)
```
Store output:
```python
out_ptrs = out_ptr + m_offs[:, None] * stride_om + n_offs[None, :] * stride_on
tl.store(out_ptrs, acc.to(tl.bfloat16), mask=(m_offs[:, None] < M) & (n_offs[None, :] < N))
```
This should work! Let me now think about auto-tuning.
For auto-tuning, I'll try different BLOCK_M and BLOCK_N values. BLOCK_K is fixed at 128 (matching group_size).
Actually, wait. Let me reconsider whether BLOCK_K must be 128. What if some configurations work better with BLOCK_K=64? In that case, I'd go through the K loop twice per group. The dequant would still be simple since both 64-element blocks are in the same group.
With BLOCK_K=64:
- Each K block spans half a group
- group_id is the same for both halves
- w_packed is (32, BLOCK_N)
- After unpacking: w_even and w_odd are each (32, BLOCK_N)
- x_even and x_odd are each (BLOCK_M, 32)
With BLOCK_K=128:
- Each K block spans exactly one group
- w_packed is (64, BLOCK_N)
- After unpacking: w_even and w_odd are each (64, BLOCK_N)
BLOCK_K=64 might be better for register pressure, especially with larger BLOCK_N.
Let me support both BLOCK_K=64 and BLOCK_K=128 in the autotuning configs.
Actually, for a first cut, let me keep it simple with fixed block sizes and verify correctness. Then I can optimize.
Let me also think about the GROUP_SIZE_M parameter for better L2 cache utilization. This is the Triton "super-grouping" trick where program IDs are remapped to improve L2 cache hit rates. I'll include this.
OK, let me write the solution now.
One more consideration: the kernel needs to handle uint8 data types. In Triton, I should use `tl.load` with the appropriate pointer type. Let me make sure the dtype handling is correct.
Actually, in Triton, when you load from a pointer, the dtype of the loaded data is inferred from the pointer type or specified. For uint8 data, I should be careful. Let me use `tl.load(pointer, mask, other).to(tl.int32)` or handle the uint8->int conversion properly.
Actually, looking at Triton docs, `uint8` is not a standard Triton dtype. Triton supports int1, int8, int16, int32, int64, float16, bfloat16, float32, float64. But uint8... hmm.
Wait, looking at newer Triton versions (3.x), there might be uint8 support. Let me check...
In Triton, `tl.uint8` should be available as a dtype. But if not, I can load as int8 or int32.
Actually, the issue is that torch.uint8 tensors in PyTorch — Triton needs to handle the pointer type correctly. Let me use the trick of casting the pointer:
```python
# Instead of passing uint8 pointers directly, cast to int32 pointers
w_q_ptr_int = w_q_ptr.to(tl.pointer_type(tl.int32))
```
Actually, I think I can just use `tl.load` with the appropriate type hint. Let me check if Triton 3.6 supports uint8 loads.
Let me just try it and see if it works. I'll use int32 and do bit operations.
Alternatively, I can view the uint8 tensor as int32 in PyTorch before passing to Triton. That might be the cleanest approach.
Actually, let me just use the approach of passing the data pointer cast to int32, and load 4 bytes at a time, then extract the nibbles.
Hmm, this is getting complex. Let me simplify: I'll just load as uint8 in Triton if possible. If not, I'll load as int32 and handle the unpacking.
Let me look at what triton.language has for uint8...
Actually, in Triton 3.x, `tl.uint8` IS supported as a dtype. So `tl.load(ptr, mask, other)` from a uint8 pointer should work.
But wait, I recall that when you do arithmetic on uint8 values in Triton, the behavior might be different from what I expect (e.g., overflow). Let me convert to int32 immediately after loading.
Let me write it and test it.
Actually for simplicity, let me just convert the uint8 packed tensor to int32 before passing to the kernel, with appropriate reshaping. This way I can do all the nibble extraction with int32.
Hmm, let me try the simplest approach first: load as uint8, mask with 0xF, and convert to float32. This should work in Triton 3.6.
Let me just write the code and iterate.
in 1048out 0cache_r 32640cache_w 0
assistant
in 1048out 0cache_r 32640cache_w 0
tool
stdout (78 chars)
Task #1 created successfully: Implement W4A16 fused GEMM kernel in solution.py
assistant
reasoning (100 chars)
Let me start implementing. First, let me check what Triton dypes are available for uint8 operations.
in 50out 0cache_r 37632cache_w 0
assistant
in 50out 0cache_r 37632cache_w 0
assistant
reasoning (112 chars)
Let me check the Triton uint8 support and also check what happens with the reference implementation performance.
in 24out 0cache_r 37760cache_w 0
assistant
Let me first check what Triton dtypes are available and test a simple kernel.
in 24out 0cache_r 37760cache_w 0
assistant
in 24out 0cache_r 37760cache_w 0
subagent · 23 events · 6 tools
tool
stdout (282 chars)
Command running in background with ID: bhmrr3ue5. Output is being written to: /tmp/claude-1002/-workspace-problems-07-w4a16-gemm/3ad6d1d0-e959-40a0-9820-6c0f171df203/tasks/bhmrr3ue5.output. You will be notified when it completes. To check interim output, use Read on that file path.
assistant
reasoning (62 chars)
That seems to have started slowly. Let me wait for the result.
in 442out 0cache_r 37760cache_w 0
assistant
in 442out 0cache_r 37760cache_w 0
tool
stdout (135 chars)
<retrieval_status>timeout</retrieval_status>
<task_id>bhmrr3ue5</task_id>
<task_type>local_bash</task_type>
<status>running</status>
assistant
reasoning (111 chars)
It seems to be taking a long time. Triton JIT compilation can be slow the first time. Let me give it more time.
in 83out 0cache_r 38272cache_w 0
assistant
in 83out 0cache_r 38272cache_w 0
tool
stdout (242 chars)
<retrieval_status>success</retrieval_status>
<task_id>bhmrr3ue5</task_id>
<task_type>local_bash</task_type>
<status>completed</status>
<exit_code>0</exit_code>
<output>
input: [18, 52, 86, 120]
output: [2, 4, 6, 8]
uint8 works!
</output>
assistant
reasoning (259 chars)
Good, uint8 works in Triton. Now let me write a complete test to verify that the basic kernel logic works before writing the full solution.
Let me write a small test with a simple kernel to make sure the unpacking and dequant logic works correctly in Triton.
in 363out 0cache_r 38400cache_w 0
assistant
Good, uint8 works. Now let me test the full fused kernel approach with a small shape.
in 363out 0cache_r 38400cache_w 0
assistant
in 363out 0cache_r 38400cache_w 0
tool
stderr (2766 chars) — TRUNCATED
Exit code 1
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/_test_kernel.py", line 154, in <module>
test_small()
File "/workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/_test_kernel.py", line 129, in test_small
gemm_w4a16_kernel[grid](
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/runtime/jit.py", line 370, in <lambda>
return lambda *args, **kwargs: self.run(grid=grid, warmup=False, *args, **kwargs)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/runtime/jit.py", line 720, in run
kernel = self._do_compile(key, signature, device, constexprs, options, attrs, warmup)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/runtime/jit.py", line 849, in _do_compile
kernel = self.compile(src, target=target, options=options.__dict__)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/compiler/compiler.py", line 304, in compile
module = src.make_ir(target, options, codegen_fns, module_map, context)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/compiler/compiler.py", line 80, in make_ir
return ast_to_ttir(self.fn, self, context=context, options=options, codegen_fns=co
... (1266 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (280 chars)
Right, Triton can't access regular Python globals from within jitted functions. I need to pass GROUP_SIZE as a constexpr or make it a `tl.constexpr`. Let me fix this.
Also, I should use `tl.constexpr` for the GROUP_SIZE variable inside the kernel, or just pass it as a parameter.
in 893out 0cache_r 41088cache_w 0
assistant
Need to pass GROUP_SIZE as a constexpr. Let me fix that.
in 893out 0cache_r 41088cache_w 0
assistant
in 893out 0cache_r 41088cache_w 0
tool
stdout (113 chars)
M=2, N=64, K=256
Max abs diff: 0.000000
Max abs ref: 4.031250
Relative diff: 0.000000
Within 0.10 tolerance: True
assistant
reasoning (5279 chars)
The kernel works correctly for the small test case. The max diff is exactly 0, which is expected since the dequant arithmetic should be exact given the small values.
Now let me test with a larger shape that matches one of the problem shapes, and also verify against the reference implementation's exact quant scheme.
Let me now write the full solution.py. I need to:
1. Write the Triton kernel with autotuning
2. Write the Model class
3. Write get_inputs and get_init_inputs
Let me think about autotuning. I want to try different block sizes to find the best performance for each shape. The key parameters to tune are:
- BLOCK_M: batch size tile
- BLOCK_N: output column tile
- BLOCK_K: reduction tile (should be a multiple of group_size or a divisor)
For the shapes we need to handle:
- M=1 (decode): very small M, large N and K
- M=32, M=256 (prefill): larger M
- M=16 (speculative decode): moderate M
For autotuning, I'll define a set of configurations and let Triton pick the best one.
Actually, let me first get a working solution without autotuning, verify it passes check.py, then optimize with autotuning.
Let me write the initial solution.py now.
Wait, I should handle one important detail. The reference's __init__ takes (M, N, K, group_size=GROUP_SIZE). My Model needs to accept the same args and register the same buffers (w_q, scales, zeros) with the same names and shapes. This way, state_dict loading with strict=True works.
The state_dict keys in reference.Model are: "w_q", "scales", "zeros". My Model must register buffers with exactly those names.
Also, the __init__ should produce the same weights as the reference. The reference uses a fixed torch.manual_seed based on M, N, K. Let me copy that logic exactly.
Now let me think about one more thing: the Model's forward method. The reference returns x.to(torch.bfloat16) @ w_bf. My forward needs to call the Triton kernel.
Let me also think about edge cases:
- When M doesn't evenly divide BLOCK_M
- When N doesn't evenly divide BLOCK_N
- When K doesn't evenly divide BLOCK_K
These are handled by the masks in the kernel.
One potential issue: the w_q tensor is uint8, but Triton might expect specific alignment. Let me make sure the tensors are contiguous before passing to the kernel.
OK, let me write solution.py now.
Actually, I also want to think about whether I should handle the case where K is not divisible by GROUP_SIZE. In the shapes we have, K=4096 and GROUP_SIZE=128, so 4096/128 = 32, which is fine. But for robustness, let me handle it.
Also, BLOCK_K must evenly divide GROUP_SIZE for the dequant to work correctly within a single K block. With GROUP_SIZE=128, valid BLOCK_K values are: 16, 32, 64, 128. If BLOCK_K=128, each K block is exactly one group. If BLOCK_K=64, two K blocks share one group. If BLOCK_K=32, four K blocks share one group, etc.
Actually, wait. BLOCK_K doesn't have to be a divisor of GROUP_SIZE! The issue is that within a K block, I compute `group_id = k_start // GROUP_SIZE`, which works regardless. The scale/zero are loaded once per K block, and if the K block spans multiple groups, the scale/zero would be wrong for some elements.
Wait no. Let me think again. The `k_start` loop iterates in steps of BLOCK_K. Within the loop body, `group_id = k_start // GROUP_SIZE` gives us the group for the first element of the block. If BLOCK_K <= GROUP_SIZE and k_start is always a multiple of BLOCK_K, then the block can't span a group boundary unless k_start is not aligned to GROUP_SIZE.
For correctness, I need BLOCK_K to be a divisor of GROUP_SIZE, so that k_start is always at a group boundary. If BLOCK_K=128 and GROUP_SIZE=128, then k_start is always 0, 128, 256, ... and each block is exactly one group — clean.
If BLOCK_K=64 and GROUP_SIZE=128, then k_start alternates between even and odd group offsets. But both 0*64 and 1*64 are within group 0, and 2*64=128 is in group 1. Wait, 1*64=64 is in group 0 (since 64//128=0), and 2*64=128 is in group 1. So both k_start=0 and k_start=64 are in group 0 — but they load DIFFERENT packed weight elements! The k_start=0 block loads elements 0-63, and the k_start=64 block loads elements 64-127. Both are in group 0. The group_id computation is correct.
But the issue is when k_start is NOT aligned to GROUP_SIZE. Say BLOCK_K=96 and GROUP_SIZE=128:
- k_start=0: loads elements 0-95, all in group 0 (correct)
- k_start=96: loads elements 96-191. Elements 96-127 are in group 0, but elements 128-191 are in group 1! The scale/zero from group 0 (96//128=0) would be applied to elements 128-191, which is WRONG.
So the requirement is: each K block must be fully contained within a single group. This means either:
1. BLOCK_K divides GROUP_SIZE (so k_start is always a group boundary)
2. Or we handle multiple groups within a K block (more complex)
I'll go with option 1: BLOCK_K must divide GROUP_SIZE. The valid values for GROUP_SIZE=128 are: 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.
For performance, 128, 64, and 32 are the most reasonable choices. Let me support all three in autotuning.
Actually, for the initial version, let me just use BLOCK_K=128 for simplicity, since 128 is the group size and it makes the dequant trivial. I can add more BLOCK_K options during tuning.
Let me now write the full solution.
in 104out 0cache_r 44160cache_w 0
assistant
The kernel works perfectly (zero diff). Now let me write the full `solution.py`.
in 104out 0cache_r 44160cache_w 0
assistant
in 104out 0cache_r 44160cache_w 0
tool
stdout (141 chars)
File created successfully at: /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (71 chars)
Let me test the solution with check.py to see if it passes correctness.
in 291out 0cache_r 48640cache_w 0
assistant
Now let me test it with check.py:
in 291out 0cache_r 48640cache_w 0
assistant
in 291out 0cache_r 48640cache_w 0
system — task_started
↳ subagent started
tool
stderr (4895 chars) — TRUNCATED
Exit code 1
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/language/core.py", line 43, in wrapper
return fn(*args, **kwargs)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/language/core.py", line 1644, in arange
return _semantic.arange(start, end)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/language/semantic.py", line 574, in arange
raise ValueError("arange's arguments must be of type tl.constexpr")
ValueError: arange's arguments must be of type tl.constexpr
The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:
triton.compiler.errors.CompilationError: at 56:18:
mask_n = offs_n < N
# Pointers to the start of the M / N slices
x_base = x_ptr + offs_m[:, None] * stride_xm
out_base = out_ptr + offs_m[:, None] * stride_om
acc = tl.zeros((BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N), dtype=tl.float32)
# The kernel assumes BLOCK_K divides GROUP_SIZE so that every K tile sits
# inside a single quantisation group.
half_k = BLOCK_K // 2
k_even_base = tl.arange(0, half_k) * 2 # 0, 2, 4, ..., BLOCK_K-2
^
arange's arguments must be of type tl.constexpr
The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/check.py", line 119, in <module>
main()
File "/workspace/problems/07_w4a16_
... (3395 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (1897 chars)
The issue is that `half_k = BLOCK_K // 2` is not seen as a constexpr by Triton's `tl.arange`. The `tl.arange` function requires constexpr arguments, and `BLOCK_K // 2` is a constexpr operation, but the result isn't being properly recognized as constexpr.
I need to explicitly make `half_k` a `tl.constexpr`. Let me change the approach: instead of computing `half_k` as a runtime variable, I should use `BLOCK_K // 2` directly in the tl.arange call, or better yet, use `tl.static_range` or compute the value differently.
Actually, the issue is that `half_k` is assigned as a regular Python variable inside the jitted function, so Triton sees it as a runtime variable. Even though BLOCK_K is a constexpr, the result of `BLOCK_K // 2` isn't automatically treated as constexpr.
Let me fix this by inlining the computation or using tl.constexpr explicitly.
In Triton, I can use `half_k: tl.constexpr = BLOCK_K // 2` to make it a constexpr. But actually, looking at the error more carefully, the issue is specifically with `tl.arange(0, half_k)`. The second argument to `tl.arange` needs to be a constexpr.
Let me just use `tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K // 2)` directly. Or better, I can restructure the code to avoid the intermediate variable.
Actually wait, the issue might be more subtle. Let me look at the Triton source for how to properly do this.
In Triton, you can use `tl.static_range` for loops, but for `tl.arange`, the arguments must be compile-time constants. The issue is that `half_k = BLOCK_K // 2` makes `half_k` appear as a runtime variable to the Triton AST analyzer, even though it's computable at compile time.
The fix: use `BLOCK_K // 2` directly in the `tl.arange` call, or use `tl.constexpr(BLOCK_K // 2)`.
Let me try:
```python
tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K // 2)
```
This should work because `BLOCK_K` is already a constexpr and `// 2` is a constant expression.
Let me fix the kernel.
in 1572out 0cache_r 48896cache_w 0
assistant
The issue is that `BLOCK_K // 2` isn't being recognized as constexpr when assigned to a variable. Let me fix this by inlining it directly.
in 1572out 0cache_r 48896cache_w 0
assistant
in 1572out 0cache_r 48896cache_w 0
tool
stdout (1152 chars)
49 GROUP_SIZE: tl.constexpr,
50 GROUP_M: tl.constexpr,
51 ):
52 """Fused W4A16 GEMM.
53
54 Each program computes a (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N) tile of the output. The
55 reduction loops over K in steps of BLOCK_K, which must divide GROUP_SIZE
56 so that every K-block sits entirely inside a single quantisation group.
57 """
58 pid = tl.program_id(0)
59 num_pid_m = tl.cdiv(M, BLOCK_M)
60 num_pid_n = tl.cdiv(N, BLOCK_N)
61 num_pid_in_group = GROUP_M * num_pid_n
62 group_id_m = pid // num_pid_in_group
63 first_pid_m = group_id_m * GROUP_M
64 group_size_m = min(num_pid_m - first_pid_m, GROUP_M)
65 pid_m = first_pid_m + (pid % group_size_m)
66 pid_n = (pid % num_pid_in_group) // group_size_m
67
68 offs_m = pid_m * BLOCK_M + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_M)
69 offs_n = pid_n * BLOCK_N + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_N)
70 mask_m = offs_m < M
71 mask_n = offs_n < N
72
73 # Pointers to the start of the M / N slices
74 x_base = x_ptr + offs_m[:, None] * stride_xm
75 out_base = out_ptr + offs_m[:, None] * stride_om
76
77 acc = tl.zeros((BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N), dtype=tl.float32)
78
assistant
reasoning (359 chars)
I need to fix the lines where I compute `half_k`, `k_even_base`, `k_odd_base`, and `kh_base`. The issue is that `half_k = BLOCK_K // 2` makes half_k a regular Python variable inside the JIT function, so `tl.arange(0, half_k)` fails because half_k isn't recognized as constexpr.
Let me replace those with direct usage of `BLOCK_K // 2` in the tl.arange calls.
in 419out 0cache_r 51072cache_w 0
assistant
in 419out 0cache_r 51072cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (383 chars)
Now I also need to make sure that `kh_base` use in the offset calculation works properly. Let me also check the `k_half_offs` line - it uses `kh_base` which is now a Triton tensor, and we do `(k_start // 2) + kh_base`. Since `k_start // 2` is a Python int (from the for loop), adding it to a Triton tensor should work fine as Triton broadcasts the scalar.
Let me run check.py again.
in 518out 0cache_r 51456cache_w 0
assistant
in 518out 0cache_r 51456cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
assistant
reasoning (84 chars)
It passed! That's great. Now let me run benchmark.py to see what performance we get.
in 89out 0cache_r 52096cache_w 0
assistant
`check.py` passes. Now let me benchmark performance:
in 89out 0cache_r 52096cache_w 0
assistant
in 89out 0cache_r 52096cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (1630 chars) — TRUNCATED
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:44:21.995403+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:44:38.724828+00:00 elapsed_s=16.729 ms=0.065696
shape=0 variant=solution tflops=1.532 gbps=407.505 ms=0.066
shape=0 solution_peak_fraction=0.2264
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:44:39.352656+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:44:57.055807+00:00 elapsed_s=17.703 ms=0.090432
shape=1 variant=solution tflops=35.620 gbps=307.272 ms=0.090
shape=1 solution_peak_fraction=0.1707
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:44:57.725873+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:45:17.270975+00:00 elapsed_s=19.545 ms=0.287616
shape=2 variant=solution tflops=89.598 gbps=122.133 ms=0.288
shape=2 solution_peak_fraction=0.0679
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:45:17.474229+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:45:33.981941+00:00 elapsed_s=16.508 ms=0.051232
shape=3 variant=solution tflops=0.655 gbps=174.291 ms=0.051
shape=3 solution_peak_fraction=0.0968
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:45:34.746500+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:45:51.938113+00:00 elapsed_s=17.192 ms=0.073888
s
... (130 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (8247 chars)
OK, the results pass (peak_fraction > 0.1), but they're not great. Let me analyze the numbers:
Shape 0 (M=1, N=12288, K=4096): 0.066 ms, 407 GB/s = 22.6% of peak bandwidth (1.8 TB/s)
Shape 1 (M=32, N=12288, K=4096): 0.090 ms, 307 GB/s = 17.1%
Shape 2 (M=256, N=12288, K=4096): 0.288 ms, 122 GB/s = 6.8%
Shape 3 (M=1, N=4096, K=4096): 0.051 ms, 174 GB/s = 9.7%
Shape 4 (M=16, N=14336, K=4096): 0.074 ms, 430 GB/s = 23.9%
Geometric mean peak fraction: 0.1434. Just barely above 0.1.
The key issue is likely:
1. The autotune is using many configurations that might not be optimal
2. The kernel might have inefficiencies (register pressure, memory access patterns)
3. The autotune may be selecting suboptimal configs
Let me think about what we can improve:
**Main bottlenecks:**
1. The K loop with BLOCK_K=128 is doing 32 iterations for K=4096. If BLOCK_K is smaller (e.g., 64 or 32), we have more iterations but less register pressure.
2. The current approach does two separate tl.dot calls per iteration (even + odd K rows)
3. We're doing float32 dequant conversion in registers which might cause register spilling
**Potential optimizations:**
1. Better block size selection - try more configurations
2. Use pipelining (num_stages > 1) to overlap memory loads with compute
3. Reduce the number of warps per block
4. Try different tile sizes
Let me first check what config the autotuner is picking. I can also try to improve the kernel itself.
Actually, I think the main issue might be register pressure and the two-dot approach. Let me think about whether there's a way to pack the even/odd weights into a single dot product.
Wait, actually, there's a better approach! Instead of doing two separate dot products for even and odd K rows, I can interleave the even/odd weights into a single tensor. But in Triton, I'd need to construct the interleaved tensor, which might not save anything.
Actually, another approach: instead of loading x_even and x_odd separately with stride-2 access, I can load the full x tile (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) and then split it in registers. This might be more efficient because we do one contiguous load instead of two strided loads.
Let me think about this...
```python
# Instead of:
x_even = tl.load(x_even_ptrs, ...) # strided access
x_odd = tl.load(x_odd_ptrs, ...) # strided access
# We could do:
x_full = tl.load(x_base + k_start * stride_xk + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K)[None, :] * stride_xk, ...)
# Then split:
x_even = x_full[:, 0::2] # But tl slicing might not work for this
x_odd = x_full[:, 1::2]
```
Actually, Triton's tensor slicing might not support stride-2 slicing efficiently on the loaded data. Let me think about this differently.
Actually, maybe I should try a different approach. Instead of splitting into even/odd and doing two dot products, I can interleave the dequantized weights:
```python
# Create interleaved weight tensor: (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N)
w_deq = tl.join(w_lo_bf16, w_hi_bf16) # But tl.join interleaves along a new dim, not along K
```
Hmm, Triton's `tl.join` joins along a new dimension, creating a new axis. What I need is to interleave along the existing K dimension. I'd need something like:
```python
# w_lo_bf16: (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N) - even rows
# w_hi_bf16: (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N) - odd rows
# Desired: (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N) with interleaved even/odd
# Using reshape and interleave:
w_stacked = tl.join(w_lo_bf16, w_hi_bf16) # (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N, 2)
w_deq = tl.reshape(w_stacked, (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N)) # interleaved if join is column-major?
```
Actually, `tl.join` joins along a new axis: given tensors of shape (A, B), `tl.join(a, b)` gives (A, B, 2). Then `tl.reshape` to (2*A, B) would interleave them if the reshape is column-major... but I'm not sure about the reshape semantics in Triton.
Alternatively, I can use `tl.interleave` if it exists... let me check. In Triton, there's `tl.interleave(a, b)` which interleaves along the last dimension: given (A, B), returns (A, 2*B). But that interleaves along the N dimension, not K.
Actually wait, I need to interleave along K (the reduction dimension of the dot product). In the dot product `tl.dot(x, w)`, the shapes are:
- x: (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K)
- w: (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N)
If I can create w_deq as (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N) and x_full as (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K), then `tl.dot(x_full, w_deq)` gives the correct result.
The question is how to efficiently construct the interleaved w_deq from w_lo and w_hi. In Triton, I could do:
```python
w_deq_2d = tl.join(w_lo_bf16[None, :, :], w_hi_bf16[None, :, :]) # (1, BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N, 2)???
```
Hmm, this is getting complicated. Let me think about whether the two-dot-product approach is actually a bottleneck.
For the decode case (M=1), the dot product is tiny (1, 64) @ (64, 128) = (1, 128) per half-block. The overhead of the extra tl.dot call might not be the limiting factor.
Let me focus on more impactful optimizations:
1. Better autotuning configuration space
2. Pipelining (num_stages)
3. Warp count tuning
4. Reducing the number of configurations for faster autotuning
Actually, looking at the results more carefully, shape 4 (M=16, N=14336, K=4096) has the best gbps at 430 GB/s. This suggests the kernel works well for moderate M but degrades for M=1 and M=256.
For M=1, the issue is likely that we're launching too many blocks. If N=12288 and BLOCK_N=64, that's 192 blocks, each doing BLOCK_M=1 worth of work. Each block has very little work (32 iterations of tiny dot products).
Actually, wait. The autotune might pick a very bad config. Let me add a warmup/benchmarking phase and also add a heuristic for picking good configs.
Actually, let me first just check what config is being picked by removing the autotune and manually testing different block sizes.
Wait, another thought: the num_stages and num_warps settings. I'm currently using num_stages=3 and num_warps=4 for all configs. Let me vary these more carefully.
For Blackwell, the optimal configuration might be quite different from what I have. Let me try:
- num_warps: 4, 8
- num_stages: 2, 3, 4
- Different BLOCK sizes
Also, I notice I'm skipping configs where BLOCK_M * BLOCK_N > 4096. That might be too restrictive. On Blackwell, I can probably handle larger tiles.
Let me also think about a key issue: the kernel is doing ALL the work in float32 dequant, then converting to bf16 for the dot product. This means:
1. We spend registers on float32 temporary values
2. The conversion to bf16 might introduce overhead
A potential optimization: since we know the scales and zeros, and the weights are small integers (0-15), we could pre-compute tables. But that's complex.
Let me instead focus on:
1. Better autotuning configs (more num_warps options, larger tiles)
2. Actually, let me also try a version where we do the dequant in bf16 instead of f32→bf16
Actually, thinking about it more, the conversion chain `uint8 → f32 → subtract zero → multiply scale → bf16` might be expensive. What if we do the dequant in bf16 directly? Triton supports bf16 arithmetic...
But actually, the issue is that uint8 → bf16 conversion might lose precision. The int4 values are 0-15, which can be exactly represented in bf16. The zeros are also bf16 (0-15 range values, exactly representable). The scales are bf16. So the dequant result should be fine in bf16.
Let me try simplifying the dequant to avoid the f32 intermediate:
```python
w_lo_bf = (w_lo.to(tl.bfloat16) - z_g_bf) * s_g_bf
```
This saves register space and conversion overhead. But I need to be careful about precision. Let me test this.
Actually, wait. uint8 → bf16 conversion: Triton might not support direct uint8→bf16 conversion. Let me check... In Triton, you can do `.to(tl.bfloat16)` on most types. Let me try.
Let me also consider another optimization: since the int4 values are stored as packed bytes, I can pre-compute a lookup table for each (nibble, zero, scale) combination. But that's complex.
For now, let me focus on:
1. Cleaning up the autotune configuration
2. Making the dequant more efficient
3. Fixing any register pressure issues
Let me rewrite the solution with better autotuning.
Actually, let me first check what configs the autotuner selects, and also test the simple fix of avoiding the f32 intermediate:
in 712out 0cache_r 52224cache_w 0
assistant
Passes correctness. Now let me optimize performance. Let me first check what config the autotuner is picking and test the kernel more carefully.
in 712out 0cache_r 52224cache_w 0
assistant
in 712out 0cache_r 52224cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stderr (477 chars)
Exit code 1
=== Shape: M=1, N=12288, K=4096 ===
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/_profile_configs.py", line 71, in <module>
ms, gbps = test_config(M, N, K, BM, BN, BK)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/_profile_configs.py", line 59, in test_config
gbps = bytes_total / ms / 1e6
~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for /: 'int' and 'list'
assistant
reasoning (99 chars)
The issue is that `ms` is a list (from `do_bench` with quantiles). Let me fix the profiling script.
in 397out 0cache_r 56192cache_w 0
assistant
in 397out 0cache_r 56192cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (7083 chars) — TRUNCATED
=== Shape: M=1, N=12288, K=4096 ===
M= 1 N= 32 K= 64 ms=0.0532 GB/s=503
M= 1 N= 32 K=128 ms=0.0531 GB/s=504
M= 1 N= 64 K= 64 ms=0.0553 GB/s=484
M= 1 N= 64 K=128 ms=0.0508 GB/s=526
M= 1 N= 128 K= 64 ms=0.0715 GB/s=374
M= 1 N= 128 K=128 ms=0.0635 GB/s=422
M= 1 N= 256 K= 64 ms=0.0778 GB/s=344
M= 1 N= 256 K=128 ms=0.0614 GB/s=436
M= 4 N= 32 K= 64 ms=0.0553 GB/s=484
M= 4 N= 32 K=128 ms=0.0532 GB/s=503
M= 4 N= 64 K= 64 ms=0.0574 GB/s=466
M= 4 N= 64 K=128 ms=0.0510 GB/s=525
M= 4 N= 128 K= 64 ms=0.0717 GB/s=373
M= 4 N= 128 K=128 ms=0.0635 GB/s=422
M= 4 N= 256 K= 64 ms=0.0818 GB/s=327
M= 4 N= 256 K=128 ms=0.0655 GB/s=409
M= 8 N= 32 K= 64 ms=0.0553 GB/s=484
M= 8 N= 32 K=128 ms=0.0533 GB/s=502
M= 8 N= 64 K= 64 ms=0.0553 GB/s=484
M= 8 N= 64 K=128 ms=0.0512 GB/s=523
M= 8 N= 128 K= 64 ms=0.0778 GB/s=344
M= 8 N= 128 K=128 ms=0.0613 GB/s=437
M= 8 N= 256 K= 64 ms=0.0819 GB/s=327
M= 8 N= 256 K=128 ms=0.0676 GB/s=396
M= 16 N= 32 K= 64 ms=0.0573 GB/s=467
M= 16 N= 32 K=128 ms=0.0553 GB/s=484
M= 16 N= 64 K= 64 ms=0.0594 GB/s=451
M= 16 N= 64 K=128 ms=0.0737 GB/s=363
M= 16 N= 128 K= 64 ms=0.0819 GB/s=327
M= 16 N= 128 K=128 ms=0.0676 GB/s=396
M= 16 N= 256 K= 64 ms=0.0899 GB/s=298
M= 16 N= 256 K=128 ms=0.0697 GB/s=384
BEST: M=1 N=64 K=128 ms=0.0508 GB/s=526
=== Shape: M=32, N=12288, K=4096 ===
M= 1 N= 32 K= 64 ms=0.4475 GB/s=62
... (5583 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (7366 chars)
OK, so the best configurations are:
Shape 0 (M=1, N=12288, K=4096): M=1, N=64, K=128 → 526 GB/s
Shape 1 (M=32, N=12288, K=4096): M=8, N=128, K=128 → 377 GB/s
Shape 2 (M=256, N=12288, K=4096): M=16, N=128, K=128 → 133 GB/s
Shape 3 (M=1, N=4096, K=4096): M=4, N=64, K=128 → 256 GB/s
Shape 4 (M=16, N=14336, K=4096): M=8, N=64, K=128 → 535 GB/s
Now, the current benchmark shows:
- Shape 0: 407 GB/s (with autotune), best manual: 526 GB/s → significant room for improvement
- Shape 1: 307 GB/s, best manual: 377 GB/s → room for improvement
- Shape 2: 122 GB/s, best manual: 133 GB/s → slight improvement
- Shape 3: 174 GB/s, best manual: 256 GB/s → significant room
- Shape 4: 430 GB/s, best manual: 535 GB/s → significant room
So my autotune is picking suboptimal configs. The issue might be:
1. The autotune configs don't include the best manual configs, or
2. The autotune selection is wrong
3. The num_warps setting might be off
Let me look at my autotune configs more carefully. I have:
```python
for BLOCK_M in [1, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64]:
for BLOCK_N in [32, 64, 128]:
for BLOCK_K in [32, 64, 128]:
for GROUP_M in [1, 4, 8]:
if BLOCK_M * BLOCK_N > 4096:
continue
```
I also skip configs where BLOCK_M * BLOCK_N > 4096. But looking at the best configs:
- (1, 64, 128): 64 < 4096 ✓
- (8, 128, 128): 1024 < 4096 ✓
- (16, 128, 128): 2048 < 4096 ✓
- (4, 64, 128): 256 < 4096 ✓
- (8, 64, 128): 512 < 4096 ✓
All are included. But I'm using num_warps=4 and num_stages=3 for ALL configs. The issue might be that num_warps=4 is too few for some configs.
For BLOCK_N=128 with num_warps=4, we have 4*32=128 threads. With BLOCK_N=128, each thread handles just 1 output column. That should be fine. But maybe num_stages=3 is too many, causing too much shared memory usage.
Let me also check: the autotuner might be picking configs based on a different criterion. The default autotuner minimizes the median runtime, so it should pick the best config. But it might be that the warmup runs are interfering or that there are compilation issues with some configs.
Let me look at my autotune configs more carefully. I notice the autotune uses `_gemm_w4a16` which then calls `_gemm_w4a16_kernel`. But the `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` is a standalone jitted function, which means it gets compiled separately. The autotune wrapper just adds the autotuning logic on top.
Actually, wait. The autotune wrapper `_gemm_w4a16` is a separate jitted function that calls `_gemm_w4a16_kernel`. This means the autotuner compiles and runs `_gemm_w4a16` with different configs, and each run calls `_gemm_w4a16_kernel`. But `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` is already a jitted function, so it's already compiled and cached. The autotuner should just be varying the launch parameters.
Actually, I think the issue is that my autotune wrapper is wrong. The autotune `_gemm_w4a16` function just calls `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` - but the autotuner benchmarks `_gemm_w4a16`, not `_gemm_w4a16_kernel`. So the benchmark includes the overhead of the outer function call plus the inner kernel call. The outer function is also a Triton kernel (jitted), so it compiles to a kernel that calls another kernel... which is weird.
Actually, looking at this more carefully, the `_gemm_w4a16` autotune function's body calls `_gemm_w4a16_kernel`. In Triton, jitted functions compile to GPU kernels. So `_gemm_w4a16` would compile to a kernel that launches `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` as a child kernel? That doesn't make sense.
Actually, I think the correct pattern is for the autotuned function to contain the actual kernel code, not to call another kernel. The autotuner picks the best config, and then the actual kernel is launched with those configs. By wrapping the real kernel inside an autotune wrapper, I'm adding unnecessary overhead.
Let me fix this by moving the kernel body into the autotuned function directly, and removing the separate `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` function. Or better, make `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` a regular Python function (not jitted), called from the autotuned wrapper.
Actually, looking at it more carefully, the whole autotune approach might be the wrong architecture. Let me:
1. Remove the autotune wrapper
2. Instead, in the Model.forward, use a heuristic to pick the best block sizes based on M, N, K
3. Or use simple autotuning with fewer configs
Actually, the problem with using autotune AND calling another kernel from within the autotuned function is that Triton's autotuner:
1. Compiles the autotuned function with each config
2. Each compiled kernel then calls another kernel (the inner one)
3. The overhead of kernel launch and the fact that the outer kernel doesn't do any work makes it inefficient
Let me restructure: make `_gemm_w4a16` contain the actual kernel code, not delegate to another kernel.
But wait, there's a simpler issue: I have TWO jitted functions. `_gemm_w4a16` is the autotuned one, and `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` is the inner one that actually does the work. When the autotuned function runs, it launches `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` as a separate kernel launch. So each timestep in the autotuner measures:
1. Launch of `_gemm_w4a16` kernel (outer)
2. Launch of `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` kernel (inner)
3. The autotuner measures the combined time
This double-launch is wasteful. Let me fix this.
The correct approach is:
1. Have `_gemm_w4a16` be the autotuned function that contains the actual kernel code
2. Remove `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` entirely, or make it a plain Python function
Actually, even better: I should just inline the kernel body into the autotuned function. That's the standard Triton pattern.
Let me rewrite the solution with this fix and also tune the config space.
Let me also think about the num_warps issue. Looking at the profiling results, the best configs are:
- M=1, N=12288: (1, 64, 128) at 526 GB/s
- M=32, N=12288: (8, 128, 128) at 377 GB/s
- M=256, N=12288: (16, 128, 128) at 133 GB/s
- M=1, N=4096: (4, 64, 128) at 256 GB/s
- M=16, N=14336: (8, 64, 128) at 535 GB/s
These all use BLOCK_K=128. The best tile sizes are:
- For M=1: (1, 64) → 64 elements per block
- For M=32: (8, 128) → 1024 elements per block
- For M=256: (16, 128) → 2048 elements per block
- For M=1, N=4096: (4, 64) → 256 elements per block ← wait, M=1 but best BLOCK_M=4?
- For M=16: (8, 64) → 512 elements per block
For M=1 with BLOCK_M=4, the kernel has 3 wasted rows (masked out). But somehow it's faster than BLOCK_M=1. This could be because:
- Larger BLOCK_M allows better memory coalescing when loading x
- The dot product with larger BLOCK_M is more efficient (tensor core utilization)
Actually, with M=1 and BLOCK_M=4, the x tile is (4, 128) but the mask says only row 0 is valid. The dot product computes all 4 rows but 3 are discarded. This wastes compute but might still be faster due to better memory access patterns.
Hmm, that's interesting. BLOCK_M=4 with M=1 means we do 4x the compute but only keep 1/4 of the result. Yet it's faster. This suggests that the tensor core utilization benefit outweighs the wasted compute.
Let me revise the approach:
1. Fix the autotune wrapper (inline the kernel body)
2. Vary num_warps (not just 4)
3. Reduce the number of configs to speed up autotuning
4. Maybe add heuristic-based config selection
Actually, let me just clean up the autotune and fix it. Let me write a new version.
in 4328out 0cache_r 57600cache_w 0
assistant
I can see much better manual configs exist than what the autotuner picks. The issue is that my autotune wrapper calls another jitted kernel (double launch). Let me fix the architecture and tune better.
in 4328out 0cache_r 57600cache_w 0
assistant
in 4328out 0cache_r 57600cache_w 0
tool
stdout (11456 chars) — TRUNCATED
1 """W4A16 weight-only quantized GEMM — fused unpack + dequant + matmul via Triton.
2
3 AWQ/GPTQ-style asymmetric int4 scheme with explicit zero-points and per-group
4 (group_size=128) bf16 scales. The Triton kernel loads packed uint8 weights,
5 unpacks nibbles, applies the per-group affine dequant, and accumulates with
6 bf16 activations in a single pass — no materialised bf16 weight matrix.
7 """
8
9 from __future__ import annotations
10
11 import torch
12 import torch.nn as nn
13 import triton
14 import triton.language as tl
15
16 OP_TYPE = "gemm_w4a16"
17 SUPPORTED_PRECISIONS = ["int4_bf16"]
18 HARDWARE_REQUIRED = ["RTX_PRO_6000", "H100", "B200"]
19
20 GROUP_SIZE = 128
21
22 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 # Triton kernel
24 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25
26 @triton.jit
27 def _gemm_w4a16_kernel(
28 x_ptr,
29 w_q_ptr,
30 scales_ptr,
31 zeros_ptr,
32 out_ptr,
33 M,
34 N,
35 K,
36 stride_xm,
37 stride_xk,
38 stride_wq_kh,
39 stride_wq_n,
40 stride_s_g,
41 stride_s_n,
42 stride_z_g,
43 stride_z_n,
44 stride_om,
45 stride_on,
46 BLOCK_M: tl.constexpr,
47 BLOCK_N: tl.constexpr,
48 BLOCK_K: tl.constexpr,
49 GROUP_SIZE: tl.constexpr,
50 GROUP_M: tl.constexpr,
51 ):
52 """Fused W4A16 GEMM.
53
54 Each program computes a (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N) tile of the output. The
55 reducti
... (9956 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (4505 chars)
Let me rewrite the solution with several improvements:
1. **Fix the autotune architecture**: Inline the kernel body into the autotuned function to avoid double-launch. Or better yet, skip autotune and use a heuristic-based config selection based on the profiling results, which will be faster and more reliable.
2. **Better config selection**: Based on the profiling results, I can pick good defaults:
- M=1, large N: (BLOCK_M=1 or 4, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128)
- M=32, large N: (BLOCK_M=8, BLOCK_N=128, BLOCK_K=128)
- M=256, large N: (BLOCK_M=16, BLOCK_N=128, BLOCK_K=128)
- M=1, N=4096: (BLOCK_M=4, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128)
- M=16, N=14336: (BLOCK_M=8, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128)
3. **num_warps and num_stages**: The profiling was done with num_warps=4 implicitly (Triton default). Let me also try different num_warps values.
4. **Optimized dequant**: Instead of f32→bf16, try bf16 directly.
Actually, let me think about this differently. The autotune issue is that the autotuned `_gemm_w4a16` calls `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` which is already jitted. This creates:
1. Autotuner compiles `_gemm_w4a16` with a given config
2. The compiled kernel code calls `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` — but `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` is a separate jitted function, so this becomes a kernel-launching-another-kernel scenario
3. The autotuner measures the combined time of the outer kernel launch + inner kernel launch
This is wrong/wasteful. Let me fix it by:
- Option A: Remove the autotune wrapper and just use heuristics
- Option B: Inline the kernel body into the autotuned function
- Option C: Make `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` a non-jitted helper that the autotuned function calls
Actually, wait. Looking at the code, `_gemm_w4a16` has `@triton.jit` on it. When it calls `_gemm_w4a16_kernel`, both are jitted. In PTX, this would be... hmm, does Triton inline the call or generate a device-side kernel launch?
Actually, I think the issue is that `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` is called as a regular function within the jitted `_gemm_w4a16`. In Triton's JIT, function calls within a jitted function are inlined into the generated code. So there's no double-launch — it's just that the `_gemm_w4a16` wrapper has a different set of constexpr parameters.
Wait, that might not be right either. Let me re-read the Triton docs...
In Triton, when you call another `@triton.jit` function from within a `@triton.jit` function, the call is inlined. So `_gemm_w4a16` calling `_gemm_w4a16_kernel` should be fine — the compiled kernel is the same whether the body is inline or in a separate function.
But wait, the autotuner benchmarks `_gemm_w4a16`, not `_gemm_w4a16_kernel`. The autotuner compiles `_gemm_w4a16` with each config. Since `_gemm_w4a16` is just a wrapper that calls `_gemm_w4a16_kernel`, and the body gets inlined, the result should be the same as if the body were inline. So the autotune should work correctly.
But then why is the autotune picking suboptimal configs?
Possible reasons:
1. The warmup within autotune might be insufficient
2. The config space includes too many bad configs and the pruner might eliminate good ones
3. num_warps=4 might not be optimal for all configs
4. The autotuner isn't finding the right config because the performance landscape is noisy
Let me fix the autotune by:
1. Reducing the config space to only good configurations
2. Varying num_warps (not just num_warps=4)
3. Using better block sizes based on the profiling results
Actually, let me try a completely different approach. Instead of autotune, I'll use a heuristic to pick the best config. This is faster (no autotune overhead) and more reliable.
Based on the profiling results:
- For decode (M=1): BLOCK_M=min(4, M), BLOCK_N=64 (or 128 for larger N), BLOCK_K=128
- For small prefill (M=16-32): BLOCK_M=min(16, M), BLOCK_N=128, BLOCK_K=128
- For larger prefill (M≥128): BLOCK_M=min(32, M), BLOCK_N=128, BLOCK_K=128
But this gets complex. Let me just keep autotune but fix it.
Actually, let me try a SIMPLER approach. Let me just use a few well-chosen configs and let autotune pick the best one. I'll also inline the kernel body and try different num_warps.
Let me also consider: maybe the issue is that the autotuner's pruning (which eliminates slow configs) is eliminating good configs because the first few runs are noisy. Let me try with `prune_configs_by` to be more conservative.
Actually, you know what, let me just try: keep the kernel working, but use a heuristic instead of autotune. This avoids all autotune issues.
in 3473out 0cache_r 64256cache_w 0
assistant
Let me rewrite the solution with better architecture — I'll use heuristic-based config selection based on the profiling data I collected, avoiding autotune issues.
in 3473out 0cache_r 64256cache_w 0
assistant
in 3473out 0cache_r 64256cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (828 chars)
Wait, I have `NUM_WARPS` as a constexpr but `num_warps` as a regular arg. But `num_warps` isn't a valid kernel parameter — it's a launch parameter. Let me remove the `NUM_WARPS` constexpr since it's not used in the kernel body, and also remove `num_warps` from the kernel args. The `num_warps` is set at the launch site via the `[]` syntax.
Actually, wait, I set `num_warps=num_warps` in the kernel launch `_gemm_w4a16_kernel[grid](..., num_warps=num_warps)`. That should work because Triton allows setting `num_warps` as a launch parameter. But I also have `NUM_WARPS: tl.constexpr` in the kernel signature, which will conflict.
Let me remove `NUM_WARPS` from the kernel signature since it's not used in the kernel body. I'll just set `num_warps` as a launch parameter.
Also, let me verify correctness first, then benchmark.
in 124out 0cache_r 72064cache_w 0
assistant
I have an unused `NUM_WARPS` constexpr in the kernel — let me fix that. Also, let me first check correctness before benchmarking.
in 124out 0cache_r 72064cache_w 0
assistant
in 124out 0cache_r 72064cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (64 chars)
Also need to remove `NUM_WARPS=num_warps,` from the kernel call.
in 610out 0cache_r 72064cache_w 0
assistant
Also remove the `NUM_WARPS` from the kernel call:
in 610out 0cache_r 72064cache_w 0
assistant
in 610out 0cache_r 72064cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (46 chars)
Now let me run check.py to verify correctness.
in 192out 0cache_r 72704cache_w 0
assistant
in 192out 0cache_r 72704cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
assistant
reasoning (53 chars)
Good, correctness still passes. Now let me benchmark.
in 177out 0cache_r 72960cache_w 0
assistant
Now let me benchmark with the heuristic config selection:
in 177out 0cache_r 72960cache_w 0
assistant
in 177out 0cache_r 72960cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (1625 chars) — TRUNCATED
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:49:56.892028+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:49:57.099168+00:00 elapsed_s=0.207 ms=0.060976
shape=0 variant=solution tflops=1.651 gbps=439.049 ms=0.061
shape=0 solution_peak_fraction=0.2439
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:49:57.758118+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:49:57.768295+00:00 elapsed_s=0.010 ms=0.085040
shape=1 variant=solution tflops=37.879 gbps=326.755 ms=0.085
shape=1 solution_peak_fraction=0.1815
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:49:58.417847+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:49:58.439882+00:00 elapsed_s=0.022 ms=0.277872
shape=2 variant=solution tflops=92.740 gbps=126.415 ms=0.278
shape=2 solution_peak_fraction=0.0702
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:49:58.641874+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:49:58.648519+00:00 elapsed_s=0.007 ms=0.044608
shape=3 variant=solution tflops=0.752 gbps=200.172 ms=0.045
shape=3 solution_peak_fraction=0.1112
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:49:59.421017+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:49:59.429802+00:00 elapsed_s=0.009 ms=0.069232
shape=
... (125 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (16094 chars)
OK, let me analyze the results:
Shape 0 (M=1, N=12288, K=4096): 0.061 ms, 439 GB/s - was 407 GB/s (+7.9%)
Shape 1 (M=32, N=12288, K=4096): 0.085 ms, 327 GB/s - was 307 GB/s (+6.5%)
Shape 2 (M=256, N=12288, K=4096): 0.278 ms, 126 GB/s - was 122 GB/s (+3.3%)
Shape 3 (M=1, N=4096, K=4096): 0.045 ms, 200 GB/s - was 174 GB/s (+14.9%)
Shape 4 (M=16, N=14336, K=4096): 0.069 ms, 459 GB/s - was 430 GB/s (+6.7%)
Geometric mean: 0.1546 (was 0.1434) — improved by 7.8%.
But still far from the best manual configs:
- Shape 0: 439 vs 526 GB/s ideal
- Shape 1: 327 vs 377 GB/s ideal
- Shape 3: 200 vs 256 GB/s ideal
- Shape 4: 459 vs 535 GB/s ideal
The heuristic is picking suboptimal configs. Let me check what configs are being picked:
For shape 0 (M=1, N=12288): picks M=4, N=64, K=128 — but best was M=1, N=64, K=128 (526 vs 439)
For shape 1 (M=32, N=12288): picks M=8, N=128, K=128 — matches best manual (377 vs 327)
For shape 3 (M=1, N=4096): picks M=4, N=64, K=128 — best manual was M=4, N=64, K=128 (256 vs 200)
For shape 4 (M=16, N=14336): picks M=8, N=64, K=128 — best manual was M=8, N=64, K=128 (535 vs 459)
Wait, the configs I'm picking look correct. But the actual performance is worse than the manual profiling. Why?
The manual profiling was done with `triton.testing.do_bench` which measures differently than `benchmark.py`. Also, my manual profiling didn't set `num_warps` explicitly, so it used the default. Let me check what default num_warps Triton uses...
Actually, looking more carefully at the problem, the discrepancy might be because:
1. The manual profiling used GROUP_M=8 for all configs, but my heuristic changes GROUP_M
2. The `do_bench` in my manual profiling might have different warmup/measurement characteristics
3. There's overhead in the Model.forward that isn't present in the raw kernel call (contiguous checks, etc.)
But the main issue is still that the performance is far from memory bandwidth. Let me think about what can be done to push this higher.
At 439 GB/s for shape 0, that's 24.4% of 1.8 TB/s. The decode case should be purely memory-bound. So why are we only getting 24% of bandwidth?
Potential bottlenecks:
1. **The kernel is compute-bound, not memory-bound**: We're doing float32 dequant math for every weight element, plus bf16 dot products. For M=1, the compute might actually be the bottleneck, not memory bandwidth.
2. **Poor memory access patterns**: The strided access for x (loading even and odd rows separately) might cause inefficient memory transactions.
3. **Register spilling**: The kernel might be using too many registers, causing spilling to local memory.
4. **Inefficient dot product utilization**: The `tl.dot` might not be fully utilizing tensor cores for small K dimensions.
Let me think about optimization #2 first: instead of loading x_even and x_odd separately (two strided loads), I can load x as a contiguous block and then split in registers. This should give better memory coalescing.
```python
# Instead of:
x_even = tl.load(x_base + k_even[None, :] * stride_xk, ...) # stride-2, poor coalescing
x_odd = tl.load(x_base + k_odd[None, :] * stride_xk, ...) # stride-2, poor coalescing
# Do:
k_offs = k_start + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K)
x_full = tl.load(x_base + k_offs[None, :] * stride_xk, ...) # (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K), contiguous
# Then split:
x_even = tl.view(...) # or reshape
```
Wait, but in Triton, splitting a loaded tensor by columns (even/odd) without a stride load is not straightforward. I'd need to use `tl.reshape` or manual indexing.
Actually, in Triton, I can reshape the (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) tensor:
```python
x_reshaped = tl.reshape(x_full, (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K // 2, 2)) # (BLOCK_M, 64, 2)
# But how to extract [:, :, 0] and [:, :, 1]?
```
Hmm, Triton might not support slicing with `[:, :, 0]` syntax. Let me think of another way.
Actually, in Triton you CAN slice: `x_full[:, 0::2]` gives even columns and `x_full[:, 1::2]` gives odd columns. But Triton arrays might not support Python slicing syntax directly. Let me check...
Actually, Triton tensors do support slicing! From the docs: "Triton tensors support most NumPy-like indexing semantics." So I could do:
```python
x_even = x_full[:, 0::2] # every other column starting at 0
x_odd = x_full[:, 1::2] # every other column starting at 1
```
But the question is whether this is more efficient than two separate loads. Let me think...
Actually, loading a contiguous (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) tile and then splitting in registers is almost certainly more efficient than two strided loads. With strided loads, each warp needs to do non-coalesced memory transactions. With a contiguous load, the memory transactions are coalesced.
But wait, if BLOCK_K=128 and BLOCK_M is small (like 1 or 4), the memory transaction size for a row-major load is small. For BLOCK_M=1, loading (1, 128) from row-major memory means loading 128 consecutive bf16 values (256 bytes) — that's 8 memory transactions of 32 bytes each (on Blackwell with 32-byte cache lines). Each transaction is coalesced because the threads in a warp access consecutive addresses.
For the strided loads (1, 64) with stride 2, it's loading 64 non-consecutive bf16 values (128 bytes), but the actual memory addresses are every other bf16. So the cache line utilization is 50%. This is less efficient.
Let me try the contiguous load + split approach and see if it helps.
Wait, there's another issue. For M=1, BLOCK_M=1, the thread utilization is poor. Each warp has 32 threads, but only 1 row is being processed. Let me think about how Triton maps threads to work items...
In Triton, for the dot product, the threads are mapped to the K and N dimensions. With BLOCK_M=1, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128, the total work per block is (1, 64) output. With 4 warps (128 threads), that's 128 threads for 64 output elements — only 50% thread utilization, and each thread handles 1/2 an output element. That's actually fine for memory-bound kernels.
But actually, for the x load, each thread loads a subset of the (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) tile. With BLOCK_M=1, all threads load from the same row but different columns. With contiguous access, this is coalesced. With strided access, it's less efficient.
Let me try the approach of loading contiguous x and splitting:
```python
# Load contiguous x tile
k_offs = k_start + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K)
x_full = tl.load(x_base + k_offs[None, :] * stride_xk, mask=mask_m[:, None] & (k_offs[None, :] < K), other=0.0)
# Split
x_even = tl.reshape(x_full[:, 0::2], (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K // 2))
# Actually, in Triton the slicing might not preserve the right shape...
# Or use reshape + transpose trick:
# x_full: (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) = (BLOCK_M, 2 * (BLOCK_K//2))
# Reshape to (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K//2, 2)
# Then separate
```
Let me try using Triton's reshape and trans to avoid the stride-2 loads.
Actually, wait. Let me think about the REAL bottleneck. The memory bandwidth for shape 0 is:
- Total bytes: M*K*2 + (K/2)*N + (K/128)*N*2*2 + M*N*2
= 1*4096*2 + 2048*12288 + 32*12288*2*2 + 1*12288*2
= 8192 + 25165824 + 1572864 + 24576
= 26,771,456 bytes ≈ 26.8 MB
At 1.8 TB/s = 1800 GB/s, theoretical minimum time = 26.8 MB / 1800 GB/s = 0.0149 ms = 14.9 µs.
We're at 0.061 ms = 61 µs. That's 4.1x slower than the theoretical minimum.
What's taking so long? Let me think...
For M=1 decode, the kernel does:
- Grid: ceil(1/BLOCK_M) * ceil(12288/BLOCK_N) blocks
- With BLOCK_M=4, BLOCK_N=64: 1 * 192 = 192 blocks
- Each block: 32 iterations of the K loop (4096/128)
- Each iteration: load x, load w_packed, load scales/zeros, dequant, 2 dot products
So each block does very little work per iteration:
- x load: (4, 128) bf16 = 1024 bytes (but only 1 row is valid)
- w_packed: (64, 64) uint8 = 4096 bytes
- scales/zeros: 64 * 2 * 2 = 256 bytes
- 2 dot products: (4, 64) @ (64, 64) = each is 4*64*64*2 = 32,768 FMA ops
The weight read per block per iteration is 4096 bytes. Over 32 iterations, that's 128 KB of weight data. With 192 blocks, the total weight data read is 192 * 128 KB = 24 MB. This matches the total weight size (~25 MB).
BUT each weight byte is read 192 times (once per block in the N dimension)! That's because the weights are shared across all output columns, and we're splitting along N. So the actual memory traffic for weights is 192 * 25 MB = 4.8 GB! That's way more than the theoretical minimum of 25 MB.
This is the key insight: **the kernel is reading each weight byte from DRAM 192 times** because the weights aren't being cached effectively across blocks. The L2 cache on Blackwell RTX PRO 6000 is probably not large enough to hold all 25 MB of weights. Even if it were, the first block would cache it, and subsequent blocks would hit L2. But with 96 MB of L2 cache on RTX PRO 6000...
Wait, let me check: the RTX PRO 6000 has 96 MB of L2 cache (Blackwell architecture). The weight data is ~25 MB (w_q) + ~1.6 MB (scales+zeros) = ~26.6 MB. This should fit in L2!
But in practice, the kernel blocks access different N-column ranges. Block 0 accesses N[0:64], block 1 accesses N[64:128], etc. Each block reads ALL the weights but only the columns it needs for its N-range. So block 0 reads w_q[:, 0:64], block 1 reads w_q[:, 64:128], etc.
Wait, that's wrong. Let me re-examine. Each block loads w_packed[kh_base, n_start:n_start+BLOCK_N]. So block 0 loads w_q[:, 0:64], block 1 loads w_q[:, 64:128], etc. These are different parts of the weight matrix! So block 0 doesn't read the same data as block 1. The total data read across all blocks is exactly the full weight matrix: 25 MB.
But each block still reads its share of the weight data 32 times (once per K iteration). Over 32 K iterations, each block reads (BLOCK_K//2 * BLOCK_N) = 64 * 64 = 4096 bytes of weight data per iteration, times 32 = 128 KB total. With 192 blocks, total weight data read = 192 * 128 KB = 24 MB. This is exactly the size of the weight matrix. So each weight byte IS read only once total, not 192 times.
Wait, I'm confusing myself. Let me be more precise:
Block (pid_m, pid_n) handles rows [pid_m*BLOCK_M : (pid_m+1)*BLOCK_M] and columns [pid_n*BLOCK_N : (pid_n+1)*BLOCK_N].
In the K loop, each block loads:
- w_q[k_start//2 : k_start//2 + BLOCK_K//2, pid_n*BLOCK_N : (pid_n+1)*BLOCK_N]
- x[pid_m*BLOCK_M : (pid_m+1)*BLOCK_M, k_start : k_start + BLOCK_K]
- scales/zeros[k_start//GROUP_SIZE, pid_n*BLOCK_N : (pid_n+1)*BLOCK_N]
The key insight: each block loads DIFFERENT columns of w_q, but ALL blocks collectively read ALL columns. So the total weight data read across all blocks is exactly the database size. Each block reads its own N-slice of weights, summing to the full matrix.
But the problem is that each block reads its N-slice 32 times (once per K iteration). Each block reads 128 KB total from w_q. With 192 blocks, that's 24 MB total — exactly the packed weight size. So there's no redundant reading across blocks.
BUT: there IS potential redundancy across K iterations within each block! Between K iterations, the block accesses different K ranges and different group scales/zeros. The w_q data is different each iteration, so no redundancy there. The scales/zeros are the same only if the two iterations are in the same group (which they aren't since BLOCK_K=GROUP_SIZE).
OK so the data access is not redundant. The bottleneck then is:
1. The number of memory transactions
2. The efficiency of those transactions
3. The compute overhead within the kernel
Let me think about the memory transaction efficiency. For a block with BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128:
- w_q load: (64, 64) uint8 = 4096 bytes. With 128 threads (4 warps), each thread loads 32 bytes = 1 x 32-byte transaction = 128 transactions total. Wait, actually with Triton's memory layout, each thread loads a vectorized set of elements. Let me not go into this level of detail.
Actually, let me try a completely different approach. Let me try to:
1. Increase BLOCK_N to 128 to reduce the grid size (fewer blocks = less overhead)
2. Load x contiguously instead of strided
3. Try num_warps=8 for better memory latency hiding
Also, let me check: is the kernel bottleneck memory bandwidth or compute? If it's compute-bound (due to all the dequant math), then optimizing memory access won't help much.
Let me just try several things:
1. Load x contiguously and split in registers
2. Try larger BLOCK_N and BLOCK_M
3. Try num_warps=8
4. Maybe try to reduce the dequant arithmetic overhead
Let me also think about the dequant: we do uint8→f32, subtract zero, multiply by scale, then f32→bf16. This is 3 operations per weight element (not counting conversions). With 128*64=8192 weight elements per K iteration, times 32 iterations, times 192 blocks, that's 8192*32*192 = ~50M weight elements. Each element needs uint8→f32 conversion, subtraction, multiplication, f32→bf16 conversion. That's 4 operations * 50M = 200M ops overhead on top of the GEMM.
The GEMM itself: M*N*K*2 = 1*12288*4096*2 = ~100M FMA ops.
So the dequant overhead (200M ops) is about 2x the compute of the GEMM (100M FMA ops). This means the kernel is significantly compute-heavy, not purely memory-bound.
For M=256 (shape 2), the GEMM is 256*12288*4096*2 = 25.8G FMA ops, and the dequant overhead is the same 50M weight elements * 4 ops = 200M ops. So the dequant is negligible compared to the GEMM compute.
So for M=1 (decode), the dequant overhead is significant (~2x GEMM compute). But the total compute is still small: 300M ops in 0.061 ms = 4.9 TFLOPS. The RTX PRO 6000 BF16 peak should be much higher than this. So compute shouldn't be the bottleneck.
Let me actually check: what's the BF16 tensor core throughput on Blackwell RTX PRO 6000? I think it's around 100-125 TFLOPS for bf16. At 4.9 TFLOPS achieved, that's only 4-5% of peak compute. So even with 2x overhead from dequant, we're still far from compute-bound.
The bottleneck is likely:
1. Launch overhead: 192 blocks is a lot for a tiny problem
2. Each block does very little work (32 iterations of tiny loads and dot products)
3. Memory latency: reading from DRAM has latency that small blocks can't hide
For M=1, having 192 blocks is problematic because:
- Each block lasts only ~60 µs / 192 ≈ 0.3 µs of work (this is very approximate)
- Actually, blocks on different SMs run in parallel, so it's not 60/192 µs
- But with 192 blocks and ~128 SMs (Blackwell RTX PRO 6000 has 96-128 SMs), each SM runs 1-2 blocks. Each block takes ~60 µs (since they run in parallel). So the per-block time is ~60 µs.
OK so the blocks do run in parallel. The issue is the per-block work:
- 32 K iterations
- Each iteration: load x (1024 bytes), load w_q (4096 bytes), load scales/zeros (256 bytes), dequant, 2 dot products, accumulate
- Store output (once at end)
With 32 iterations and BLOCK_K=128, the compute per iteration is 2 * (4*64*64*2) = 65,536 FMA ops. Over 32 iterations: ~2M FMA ops per block. At 100 TFLOPS, this should take 2M/100T = 0.02 µs. But in reality, memory latency dominates.
Each iteration reads ~5 KB of data. At 1.8 TB/s, this should take ~3 ns. But DRAM latency is ~200-500 ns. So the iteration is latency-bound, not bandwidth-bound.
Increasing BLOCK_N from 64 to 128 would:
- Halve the grid size (96 blocks vs 192)
- Double the work per block
- Double the data read per iteration (~10 KB)
- Keep the same memory latency per iteration
This might help by amortizing the launch overhead and giving each block more work to hide latency.
But the actual performance improvement from going to BLOCK_N=128 was minimal in my profiling (422 vs 526 for shape 0). So this isn't the main issue.
Let me try something different: pipeline the memory loads. Use `num_stages` to overlap loads from different K iterations.
Wait, I haven't set `num_stages` in my kernel launch! The default in Triton is 3 for Blackwell. Let me also try explicit pipelining.
Hmm, actually, let me look at this from a completely different angle. Let me look at how bitsandbytes implements their gemv_4bit kernel and what performance they get.
Actually, the SOTA line from sota.py uses bitsandbytes. Let me enable baselines and see what the SOTA performance is.
in 663out 0cache_r 73216cache_w 0
assistant
Let me check what the SOTA performance looks like for reference:
in 663out 0cache_r 73216cache_w 0
assistant
in 663out 0cache_r 73216cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (4380 chars) — TRUNCATED
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:50:46.203362+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:50:46.410797+00:00 elapsed_s=0.207 ms=0.060544
shape=0 variant=solution tflops=1.663 gbps=442.182 ms=0.061
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=eager ts=2026-06-15T20:50:46.410833+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=eager ts=2026-06-15T20:50:46.554244+00:00 elapsed_s=0.143 ms=0.765968
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=compiled ts=2026-06-15T20:50:48.857553+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=compiled ts=2026-06-15T20:50:49.658537+00:00 elapsed_s=0.801 ms=0.152384
shape=0 variant=eager tflops=0.131 gbps=34.951 ms=0.766
shape=0 variant=compiled tflops=0.661 gbps=175.684 ms=0.152
shape=0 solution_peak_fraction=0.2457
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:50:50.310114+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:50:50.579575+00:00 elapsed_s=0.269 ms=0.085408
shape=1 variant=solution tflops=37.716 gbps=325.347 ms=0.085
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=eager ts=2026-06-15T20:50:50.579608+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=eager ts=2026-06-15T20:50:50.628979+00:00 elapsed_s=0.049 ms=0.757728
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=compiled ts=2026-06-15T20:50:50.630572+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=
... (2880 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (8375 chars)
Interesting — the SOTA line (bitsandbytes) isn't showing up. Let me check if bitsandbytes is available.
Also, I notice that `torch.compile` on the reference (which does naive unpack→dequant→matmul) gets:
- Shape 0: 0.152 ms, 176 GB/s — far worse than solution
- Shape 2: 0.214 ms, 164 GB/s — for compute-bound shape, compiled is actually decent
The key issue for my kernel: the decode cases (shape 0 and 3) are only getting 24% and 11% of peak bandwidth. Let me think more carefully about what's limiting us.
Let me try a different approach. Let me try:
1. Using `num_warps=8` which might better hide memory latency
2. Using contiguous x loads to avoid strided access
3. Using `num_stages=2` to enable better pipelining
Let me also check: maybe the issue is that BLOCK_M=4 for M=1 is causing too much wasted work. Let me try BLOCK_M=1 with larger BLOCK_N.
Actually, let me step back and think about what the theoretical best performance should be.
For pure memory-bound decode (M=1, N=12288, K=4096):
- Data read: ~26.8 MB
- At 1.8 TB/s: theoretical minimum 14.9 µs
- At 90% efficiency: ~16.6 µs
- At 50% efficiency: ~29.8 µs
- At 25% efficiency: ~59.5 µs
We're at 61 µs, which is ~24.4% of peak bandwidth. This is actually decent for a first-pass Triton kernel! Getting to 50%+ would require highly optimized memory access patterns.
But let me check: is the RTX PRO 6000 actually capable of 1.8 TB/s DRAM bandwidth in practice? The DRAM bandwidth is usually measured with large contiguous reads. For a kernel with mixed read patterns (weights, scales, activations), the achievable bandwidth is lower.
Let me try a few things to improve:
1. Load x contiguously (not strided)
2. Use larger BLOCK_N to increase work per block
3. Try num_warps=8
Let me also try something more radical: what if I fuse the two tl.dot calls into one? Instead of two separate dot products for even and odd K rows, can I interleave the weights to do one dot product?
The weights are (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N) for even and odd. If I could create a (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N) tensor and load x as (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K), I'd have a single `tl.dot(x, w_deq)` which might be more efficient.
To create the interleaved weight tensor from w_lo and w_hi:
```python
# w_lo: (64, BLOCK_N), w_hi: (64, BLOCK_N)
# Goal: (128, BLOCK_N) with interleaved rows
# Using reshape:
w_stacked = tl.join(w_lo_bf, w_hi_bf) # shape: (64, BLOCK_N, 2)
# Hmm, tl.join adds a new dimension. How to interleave?
# Actually, I can do:
# 1. Reshape both to (64, 1, BLOCK_N)
# 2. Concatenate along dim 1 to get (64, 2, BLOCK_N)
# 3. Reshape to (128, BLOCK_N)
# In Triton, tl.join along axis 1:
w_lo_3d = tl.reshape(w_lo_bf, (BLOCK_K//2, 1, BLOCK_N))
w_hi_3d = tl.reshape(w_hi_bf, (BLOCK_K//2, 1, BLOCK_N))
w_interleaved = tl.join(w_lo_3d, w_hi_3d) # (BLOCK_K//2, 2, BLOCK_N)
w_deq = tl.reshape(w_interleaved, (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N))
```
Wait, `tl.join` joins along a new dimension. The syntax is `tl.join(a, b)` which creates a new tensor with an extra dimension. But does it interleave or stack? Let me check the Triton docs...
Actually, `tl.join(a, b)` where a and b have shape (X, Y) returns (X, Y, 2), where `result[:,:,0] = a` and `result[:,:,1] = b`. So it stacks along the last axis.
Then `tl.reshape(result, (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N))` would rearrange the elements. But the ordering depends on row-major vs column-major conventions in Triton. In row-major (C-order), the elements of `result` are:
- result[0,0,0] = a[0,0]
- result[0,0,1] = b[0,0]
- result[0,1,0] = a[0,1]
- result[0,1,1] = b[0,1]
- ...
So a reshape to (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N) would give:
- result_2d[0, 0] = a[0,0] (even K row 0)
- result_2d[0, 1] = b[0,0] (odd K row 0)
- result_2d[0, 2] = a[0,1] (even K row 0, next N)
This is WRONG — it interleaves N, not K!
To get the correct interleaving, I'd need to transpose the dimensions first:
```python
w_interleaved = tl.join(w_lo_bf, w_hi_bf) # (BLOCK_K//2, BLOCK_N, 2)
w_deq = tl.reshape(tl.permute(w_interleaved, (0, 2, 1)), (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N))
```
Hmm, this is getting complex. Let me just stick with the two-dot approach but optimize the x loading.
Actually, let me try a different approach entirely. What if I don't split x into even/odd? What if I load all of x contiguously and use Triton's `tl.dot` with the combined weight matrix?
Wait, I can't combine the weight matrix without the interleaving issue. Let me try yet another approach.
What if I restructure the dot product to avoid the even/odd split entirely?
The computation is:
out[m, n] = sum_k x[m, k] * w_deq[k, n]
Where w_deq[k, n] comes from:
- If k is even: w_q[k//2, n] low nibble → w_int4 → (w_int4 - zero[group]) * scale[group]
- If k is odd: w_q[k//2, n] high nibble → w_int4 → (w_int4 - zero[group]) * scale[group]
The key issue is that even and odd k positions share the same packed byte but use different nibbles. We can't easily avoid this split.
Unless... I load the packed bytes and create a fused dot product using bitwise operations. But that's very complex in Triton.
OK let me try more practical optimizations:
1. **Load x contiguously**: Instead of two strided loads for even/odd, load one contiguous (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) tile and split in registers.
2. **Optimize tile sizes**: Based on the profiling, the best configs exist. Let me set them exactly.
3. **Use num_warps=8 where appropriate**: More warps = better latency hiding.
4. **Use num_stages=2**: Enable software pipelining to overlap loads and compute across K iterations.
Let me rewrite the solution with these optimizations.
Actually, I just realized there's another potential optimization: I can pre-load the x tile for the entire K dimension and reuse it across even/odd weights. Wait no, each K iteration loads different x elements.
OK let me just implement the contiguous x load and try to carefully tune.
Actually, wait. Let me re-examine the profiling data more carefully. For shape 0:
- BLOCK_M=1, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128: 526 GB/s
- BLOCK_M=4, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128: 525 GB/s
These are essentially the same. But the benchmark shows 439 GB/s with BLOCK_M=4. The difference might be because:
1. The profiling used triton.testing.do_bench (different measurement methodology)
2. The profiling didn't have the scales/zeros load overhead properly accounted for
3. Something else
Wait, no. The profiling uses the same kernel. Let me check if the heuristic is picking a different GROUP_M...
My heuristic for M=1: GROUP_M = 8 if M > BLOCK_M else 1. With M=1 and BLOCK_M=4: M (1) > BLOCK_M (4) is false, so GROUP_M=1. But my manual profiling used GROUP_M=8 for everything.
Let me check: with BLOCK_M=4 and M=1, GROUP_M=1 means the GROUP_M super-grouping logic degenerates to simple round-robin. Let me check if GROUP_M=8 gives different performance.
Actually, let me just set GROUP_M=8 always since it seemed to work well in the profiling.
Let me also check: are the `num_warps` settings in my manual profiling correct? I didn't set `num_warps` in the profiling kernel launch, so Triton uses its default. The default num_warps in Triton 3.6 depends on the block size. Let me check what default Triton uses.
For block size BLOCK_M * BLOCK_N:
- 1*64=64: 4 warps?
- 4*64=256: ?
- 8*128=1024: ?
Triton automatically picks num_warps based on the block size. I override it with num_warps=4 in my kernel launch, which might be wrong for larger block sizes.
Actually, in my solution code, I explicitly set num_warps=4 which might be limiting for some configs. For BLOCK_M=8, BLOCK_N=128, the total elements are 1024. With 4 warps (128 threads), each thread handles 8 elements. This might be fine, but more warps could help hide latency.
Let me remove the explicit num_warps override and let Triton pick the default. Or better, set num_warps appropriately.
Let me try:
- For small blocks (BLOCK_M * BLOCK_N ≤ 256): num_warps=4
- For medium blocks (≤ 1024): num_warps=4 or 8
- For larger blocks: num_warps=8
Actually, let me just try without setting num_warps at all and let Triton auto-select. Then benchmark.
Hmm, also I need to check if the heuristic is actually picking the right config. Let me add some debug prints.
Let me rewrite the solution with these improvements:
1. Contiguous x load (split even/odd in registers)
2. Remove explicit num_warps (let Triton auto-select)
3. Better heuristic based on profiling data
4. Always use GROUP_M=8
in 1834out 0cache_r 78592cache_w 0
assistant
Let me try key optimizations: contiguous x load, better config selection, and let Triton auto-select num_warps.
in 1834out 0cache_r 78592cache_w 0
assistant
in 1834out 0cache_r 78592cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (525 chars)
Wait, I have a problem with the x slicing approach. Triton may or may not support Python-style slicing on tensors. Let me first check correctness (which also verifies the slicing works), then benchmark.
But actually, looking at my code again, I have a messy comment about reshape/permute that I left in. Let me clean that up. Actually wait, leaving it there is fine since it's just comments. The actual code uses the slicing approach `x_full[:, 0::2]` and `x_full[:, 1::2]`.
Let me first verify correctness, then benchmark.
in 88out 0cache_r 86144cache_w 0
assistant
in 88out 0cache_r 86144cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stderr (3623 chars) — TRUNCATED
Exit code 1
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/language/core.py", line 43, in wrapper
return fn(*args, **kwargs)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/language/core.py", line 1924, in reshape
return _semantic.reshape(input, shape, can_reorder)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/triton/language/semantic.py", line 630, in reshape
raise ValueError("reshape() cannot change total number of elements in tensor")
ValueError: reshape() cannot change total number of elements in tensor
The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/check.py", line 119, in <module>
main()
File "/workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/check.py", line 80, in main
sol_out = sol_model(*inputs)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/torch/nn/modules/module.py", line 1779, in _wrapped_call_impl
return self._call_impl(*args, **kwargs)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/torch/nn/modules/module.py", line 1790, in _call_impl
return forward_call(*args, **kwargs)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py", line 241, in forward
_gemm_w4a16_ker
... (2123 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (4734 chars)
The issue is that `x_full[:, 0::2]` doesn't work as expected in Triton. It seems like the slicing is doing something unexpected, and the leftover debug code with `tl.reshape` is being executed. Wait, actually looking at the error, it's executing the `tl.reshape` code, not the slicing code. The issue is that the dead-code reshape/permute is being parsed even though it won't be executed.
Actually wait, looking at my code more carefully:
```python
# Split into even and odd columns
# x_full[:, 0::2] → even K rows, x_full[:, 1::2] → odd K rows
x_even = tl.reshape(
tl.permute(
tl.reshape(x_full, (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K // 2, 2)),
(0, 2, 1),
),
(BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K // 2),
) # this is actually [:, 1, :] from the permute since (0,2,1) moves dim 2 to dim 1
# Wait — let me think about this more carefully.
# x_full: (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) where BLOCK_K = 2 * (BLOCK_K//2)
# After first reshape: (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K//2, 2)
# result[m, k2, 0] = x_full[m, 2*k2] (even)
# result[m, k2, 1] = x_full[m, 2*k2 + 1] (odd)
# After permute (0, 2, 1): (BLOCK_M, 2, BLOCK_K//2)
# result[m, 0, k2] = x_full[m, 2*k2] (even)
# result[m, 1, k2] = x_full[m, 2*k2 + 1] (odd)
# After final reshape: (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K//2)
# This takes the first "slice", which is result[m, 0, :] = even
# Hmm, actually I need to be more careful with the reshape semantics.
# Let me just use the simple stride-slicing approach which should work.
# Actually, in Triton we CAN use Python-style slicing on tensors:
x_even = x_full[:, 0::2] # every other column starting at 0
x_odd = x_full[:, 1::2] # every other column starting at 1
```
The problem is that I left the broken reshape/permute code IN the function body, and it's being parsed by the Triton compiler. Even though the code after it (the Python slicing) also assigns to `x_even`, the compiler still has to parse the earlier assignment.
I need to remove the broken reshape/permute code and only keep the slicing code. But wait — does Triton actually support Python slicing syntax `x_full[:, 0::2]`? Let me check...
Actually, looking at the Triton docs more carefully, Triton tensors may not support arbitrary Python slicing. The `[:, 0::2]` syntax with strides might not be supported.
Let me just go back to the strided load approach, which works and is correct. The contiguous-load-then-split approach has implementation issues in Triton.
Actually, wait. Let me try a cleaner split approach. I can load x for even and odd rows using two separate load instructions, which is what I had before and it worked. The strided access is fine — it just loads from non-consecutive memory addresses, which is less efficient but still works correctly.
Let me also remove all the commented-out reshape/permute garbage from the kernel body.
Actually, let me think about whether there's a way to do the split more efficiently in Triton. One approach:
```python
x_full = tl.load(x_ptrs, mask=mask_x, other=0.0) # (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K)
# Use tl.reshape to view as (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K//2, 2)
# Then use indexing to extract the two slices
```
Actually, in Triton, you can index into multi-dimensional tensors:
```python
x_reshaped = tl.reshape(x_full, (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K // 2, 2))
# Extract even and odd
# But how? x_reshaped[:, :, 0] might work...
```
Let me try: `x_even = tl.reshape(x_full, (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K // 2, 2))[:, :, 0]` or some variant.
Wait, Triton might not support `[:, :, 0]` syntax. Let me try a different approach.
Actually, I think the simplest approach that works is to just use two separate loads for even and odd K rows. The strided access might not be ideal for memory coalescing, but for a M=1 decode kernel, the x data is tiny compared to the weight data, so the strided access overhead is negligible.
Let me just go back to the separate load approach but keep the other improvements (better heuristic, no explicit num_warps, GROUP_M=8).
Actually wait, I just realized: maybe I should try to use Triton's `tl.view` instead of `tl.reshape`. Or maybe there's a different way to slice.
Let me search for how to split a tensor in Triton... Actually, let me just try:
```python
x_full = tl.load(x_ptrs, mask=mask_x, other=0.0)
# Try to use view and then slice
x_reshaped = tl.reshape(x_full, (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K // 2, 2))
# Access [:, :, 0]
```
But I'm not sure about the slicing. Let me just go with the two-load approach for now — it works and the performance impact should be minimal for this problem.
Let me clean up the kernel and remove the broken reshape code.
in 1112out 0cache_r 86400cache_w 0
assistant
The reshape/slicing approach doesn't work cleanly in Triton. Let me go back to the two-load approach (which works correctly) and clean up:
in 1112out 0cache_r 86400cache_w 0
assistant
in 1112out 0cache_r 86400cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (12804 chars)
Let me run check.py and benchmark.py to see where we stand. I want to compare against the manual profiling best case and see what's limiting us.
Actually, let me think about what other optimizations could help. Let me look at the CUDA perspective:
1. **Memory coalescing for x loads**: The strided access with stride-2 might cause issues. At BLOCK_M=1 or BLOCK_M=4, there are only 1-4 rows being loaded. Each row is loaded by different threads. With stride-2, threads access alternate elements, meaning each 32-byte cache line serves only half the threads it could serve. This wastes 50% of memory bandwidth on the x loads.
For the decode case, x is only M*K*2 = 8192 bytes, out of ~26.8 MB total. So x represents only 0.03% of the data. Optimizing x loads won't help much.
2. **Weight data is the dominant factor**: The packed weights are (K//2)*N = 2048*12288 = ~25 MB. At 439 GB/s, we're reading at ~24% of peak. The question is whether we can get closer to peak.
3. **Block count vs occupancy**: For shape 0 with BLOCK_N=64, N=12288: 192 blocks. RTX PRO 6000 has 96 SMs (I think). Each SM can run multiple blocks concurrently. With 192 blocks, each SM gets ~2 blocks on the first wave. This should be enough to hide latency.
4. **Software pipelining**: With `num_stages` (default 3 for Blackwell), Triton should pipeline loads and compute across K iterations. But with `num_stages=3`, we need 3x the shared memory for the pipeline buffer. If the tile size is too large, we might run out of shared memory and spill to registers/L1.
Let me try some variations:
- num_stages=2 (less shared memory pressure)
- num_stages=4 (more aggressive pipelining, if shared memory allows)
- Larger BLOCK_N (fewer blocks, more work per block, better amortization)
Actually, wait. Let me check what the actual bottleneck is by profiling with nsys or ncu. But that might be complex. Let me instead try a few things and benchmark.
Key experiment: try larger BLOCK_N with the contiguous x load approach (which I haven't gotten working yet). But let me first try increasing BLOCK_N to 128 for shape 0.
Actually, from the profiling data:
- BLOCK_N=64: 526 GB/s
- BLOCK_N=128: 422 GB/s
So BLOCK_N=64 is actually faster than BLOCK_N=128 for shape 0! This suggests that memory coalescing or shared memory pressure is an issue with larger BLOCK_N.
Let me try num_stages=2 with BLOCK_N=64: less pipelining depth but less shared memory pressure. Or num_stages=4 with BLOCK_N=64: more pipelining, if shared memory allows.
Actually, let me look at this problem from a higher level. The current kernel is getting ~439 GB/s for shape 0, which is ~24% of 1.8 TB/s. This might actually be close to the practical limit for a Triton kernel with int4 dequant fusion.
Let me try to understand what the practical memory bandwidth limit is for this kind of kernel. The packed weights need to be read, unpacked, dequantized, and then fed into a dot product. Each step adds latency:
1. DRAM → L2: weight read (the main data movement)
2. L2 → SMEM/Registers: weight data moved to compute units
3. Unpack + dequant math: int4→f32, subtract, multiply, f32→bf16
4. Tensor core dot product: bf16 * bf16 → f32 accumulation
Steps 3-4 happen within the SM. Step 2 feeds them. Step 1 is the bandwidth bottleneck.
The achievable bandwidth depends on:
- DRAM access pattern (coalesced vs scattered)
- Whether the data fits in L2 cache
- Memory-level parallelism (number of outstanding requests)
For the weight read (`w_q[k_start//2 : k_start//2 + 64, n:n+64]`), the access is:
- Reading 64 consecutive bytes along the packed K dimension
- Then moving to the next column (stride = N = 12288 bytes)
- This is strided access, with stride = 12288 bytes
The stride is quite large (12 KB). This means each warp's memory transaction spans a large address range, which might cause TLB thrashing or poor DRAM page utilization.
Hmm wait, let me re-examine. The weight load is:
```
wq_ptrs = w_q_ptr + k_half_offs[:, None] * stride_wq_kh + offs_n[None, :] * stride_wq_n
```
Where:
- `k_half_offs` has shape (64,) and values [k_start/2, k_start/2+1, ..., k_start/2+63]
- `offs_n` has shape (64,) and values [n_start, n_start+1, ..., n_start+63]
- `stride_wq_kh = N` (the stride between consecutive K-half rows)
- `stride_wq_n = 1` (consecutive N elements are contiguous)
So `wq_ptrs[i, j]` = `w_q_ptr + (k_start/2 + i) * N + (n_start + j)`
This means we're loading a 64x64 tile of the (K//2, N) weight matrix. The elements within a column (same j, different i) are spaced N bytes apart. The elements within a row (same i, different j) are contiguous.
For memory coalescing, the innermost dimension (j, the N dimension) is contiguous, which is good for cache line utilization. Each row is 64 consecutive bytes, fitting in 2 cache lines (32B each).
But the 64 rows are N=12288 bytes apart. That's 64 * 12288 = ~768 KB of address range for a single 64x64 tile load. This is spread across many DRAM pages (typically 2-4 KB each). So this load touches ~200 DRAM pages.
However, over the K loop iterations (k_start = 0, 128, 256, ...), the k_half_offs changes but the offs_n stays the same. So consecutive K iterations read adjacent K-half rows of the same N columns. The memory addresses for consecutive iterations are:
- Iteration 0: k_half_base=0, addresses in range [0*N, 63*N+N-1] ≈ [0, 64N]
- Iteration 1: k_half_base=64, addresses in range [64*N, 127*N+N-1] ≈ [64N, 128N]
- ...
These are sequential ranges! So the total address range across all 32 K iterations is [0, 2048N] = [0, ~25 MB], which is the entire weight matrix.
This is actually good for DRAM: it's reading the weight matrix sequentially from start to finish. DRAM is most efficient for long sequential reads. The issue is just that between different SM blocks (different pid_n), they're reading different N-column ranges of the same sequential K sweep.
Actually, with the GROUP_M super-grouping, blocks with the same pid_n but different pid_m are launched close together, and they'll read the same N columns but different... wait no, pid_n determines N columns. Blocks with different pid_n read different N columns. So:
- Block (0, 0): reads all K rows, N columns [0:64]
- Block (0, 1): reads all K rows, N columns [64:128]
- ...
Each block reads 1/192 of the total weight data. The total data read is still ~25 MB, just partitioned across blocks.
OK so the memory access pattern is reasonable. Let me try to check if there are any configuration issues.
Let me also try: what if I increase num_warps? With 4 warps (128 threads) and BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_M=4, the total output elements are 256. With 128 threads, each thread handles 2 output elements. That's fine, but more warps could hide latency better.
With 8 warps (256 threads) and 256 output elements: 1 element per thread. The work per thread is lower, but there are more threads to hide memory latency.
Let me try num_warps=8 and see if it helps.
Also, I should check: does the kernel properly use `num_stages` for pipelining? In Triton, `num_stages` enables software pipelining of the main loop. With `num_stages=3`, up to 3 loop iterations can be in flight simultaneously (loading for iteration i+2 while computing iteration i). This should help hide memory latency.
The default in Triton varies by architecture. For Blackwell, let me check... Actually, the default is 3 for most architectures. But if the shared memory is insufficient for 3 stages, Triton might fall back to fewer stages or not pipeline at all.
With BLOCK_K=128, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_M=4:
- x tile: (4, 128) bf16 = 1024 bytes per stage
- w_packed tile: (64, 64) uint8 = 4096 bytes per stage
- scales/zeros: 64*2 = 128 bytes per stage
- Total buffer per stage: ~5.3 KB
- With 3 stages: ~16 KB
Blackwell shared memory per SM is... let me think. On Blackwell, the shared memory per SM is 128 KB (or 228 KB with opt-in). So 16 KB should easily fit. Pipelining should be active.
OK, let me just try a few more things and benchmark. I want to:
1. Try num_warps=8
2. Try num_stages explicitly
3. Maybe try a completely different kernel approach
Actually, wait. Let me try something different. What if I write a simpler kernel that doesn't split x into even/odd? Instead, I can interleave the weights.
Here's the idea:
- Load w_packed: (64, BLOCK_N) uint8
- Unpack to w_lo (64, BLOCK_N) and w_hi (64, BLOCK_N)
- Dequant both
- Use some Triton primitive to interleave them into (128, BLOCK_N)
If I can interleave the weights, I can load x as a single contiguous (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) tile and do one tl.dot instead of two. This halves the number of dot product calls.
But the interleaving is the challenge. Let me try using Triton's reshape:
Actually, let me search for how to interleave in Triton. In CUDA, you'd use `__shfl` or shared memory. In Triton...
Actually, I just realized: maybe I CAN do the interleaving in Triton with a simple approach:
```python
# Load w_packed and extract nibbles
w_lo, w_hi = ...
# Dequant both to bf16
w_lo_bf = ... # (64, BLOCK_N)
w_hi_bf = ... # (64, BLOCK_N)
# Create interleaved weight: (128, BLOCK_N)
# Stack them along a new axis and reshape
w_stacked = tl.join(w_lo_bf[:, None, :], w_hi_bf[:, None, :]) # (64, 2, BLOCK_N)
# Actually tl.join joins on the last axis...
```
Hmm, `tl.join(a, b)` where a,b are (64, BLOCK_N) gives (64, BLOCK_N, 2). That interleaves along N, not K.
What I need is (128, BLOCK_N) with interlaving along the first dim:
- row 0: w_lo[0, :]
- row 1: w_hi[0, :]
- row 2: w_lo[1, :]
- row 3: w_hi[1, :]
- ...
To get this, I need a different approach. Let me try:
```python
# Reshape each to (64, 1, BLOCK_N)
# Concatenate along axis 1 (the new axis): (64, 2, BLOCK_N)
# But tl.join adds a new axis at the END, so I need to permute first
# Alternative: use tl.join then permute+reshape
w_joined = tl.join(w_lo_bf, w_hi_bf) # (64, BLOCK_N, 2)
w_permuted = tl.permute(w_joined, (0, 2, 1)) # (64, 2, BLOCK_N) -> wait, this is wrong
```
Hmm, `tl.permute` reorders dimensions. From (64, BLOCK_N, 2), permuting with (0, 2, 1) gives (64, 2, BLOCK_N). Then reshaping to (128, BLOCK_N) should give the right interleaving (row-major order: [0,0,0], [0,0,1], [0,0,2], ... [0,1,0], [0,1,1], ...).
Wait, let me trace through this:
- w_lo_bf shape: (64, BLOCK_N)
- w_hi_bf shape: (64, BLOCK_N)
- w_joined = tl.join(w_lo_bf, w_hi_bf): (64, BLOCK_N, 2)
- w_joined[i, j, 0] = w_lo_bf[i, j]
- w_joined[i, j, 1] = w_hi_bf[i, j]
- w_permuted = tl.permute(w_joined, (0, 2, 1)): (64, 2, BLOCK_N)
- w_permuted[i, 0, j] = w_lo_bf[i, j]
- w_permuted[i, 1, j] = w_hi_bf[i, j]
- w_deq = tl.reshape(w_permuted, (128, BLOCK_N))
- Row-major: w_deq[0,:] = w_permuted[0,0,:] = w_lo_bf[0,:] ✓ (even row 0)
- w_deq[1,:] = w_permuted[0,1,:] = w_hi_bf[0,:] ✓ (odd row 0)
- w_deq[2,:] = w_permuted[1,0,:] = w_lo_bf[1,:] ✓ (even row 2)
- w_deq[3,:] = w_permuted[1,1,:] = w_hi_bf[1,:] ✓ (odd row 2)
This works! And loading x as a single (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) contiguous tile gives:
```python
x_full = tl.load(...) # (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K)
acc += tl.dot(x_full, w_deq) # single dot product instead of two!
```
But wait, does `tl.permute` exist in Triton? Let me check... Actually, I think it might be `tl.trans` (transpose). And `tl.reshape` should work.
Let me also consider: does this approach actually save register pressure or just change the structure? The total number of bf16 weight elements is the same (128 * BLOCK_N). The total compute is the same. But we do one dot product of size (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) @ (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N) instead of two of size (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K/2) @ (BLOCK_K/2, BLOCK_N). The total FMA ops is the same.
However, a single larger dot product might have better tensor core utilization than two smaller ones. Blackwell tensor cores handle specific MMA tile sizes, and a larger K dimension might fill the tile better.
Also, the x load becomes a single contiguous load instead of two strided loads, which is more efficient for memory coalescing.
Let me try this approach.
But wait, I need to be careful: `tl.join` might not be the right primitive, and `tl.permute` might not exist. Let me check what's available.
From Triton's language reference:
- `tl.join(a, b)` — joins two tensors along a new dimension
- `tl.reshape(tensor, shape)` — reshapes a tensor
- `tl.trans(tensor)` — transposes a 2D tensor
- `tl.permute(tensor, dims)` — generalized transpose for nD tensors
So `tl.permute` should exist. And `tl.join` should work for 2D → 3D.
But actually, I'm concerned about whether the reshape+permute chain is efficient or if it just adds overhead. Each operation might introduce a register copy or shared memory shuffle.
Let me just try it and see. If it compiles and runs faster, great. If not, I'll fall back to the two-dot approach.
Let me code this up.
in 74out 0cache_r 91648cache_w 0
assistant
Let me try a more radical optimization: interleave the even/odd dequantized weights so we can use a single `tl.dot` instead of two, plus do a contiguous x load:
in 74out 0cache_r 91648cache_w 0
assistant
in 74out 0cache_r 91648cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (47 chars)
Let me first check correctness, then benchmark.
in 6852out 0cache_r 91648cache_w 0
assistant
in 6852out 0cache_r 91648cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
assistant
reasoning (41 chars)
Correctness passes! Now let me benchmark.
in 56out 0cache_r 98560cache_w 0
assistant
Correctness passes. Now benchmark:
in 56out 0cache_r 98560cache_w 0
assistant
in 56out 0cache_r 98560cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (1624 chars) — TRUNCATED
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:57:17.362507+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:57:17.571958+00:00 elapsed_s=0.209 ms=0.067904
shape=0 variant=solution tflops=1.482 gbps=394.254 ms=0.068
shape=0 solution_peak_fraction=0.2190
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:57:18.222201+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:57:18.237988+00:00 elapsed_s=0.016 ms=0.184832
shape=1 variant=solution tflops=17.428 gbps=150.338 ms=0.185
shape=1 solution_peak_fraction=0.0835
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:57:18.899285+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:57:18.930694+00:00 elapsed_s=0.031 ms=0.444528
shape=2 variant=solution tflops=57.971 gbps=79.022 ms=0.445
shape=2 solution_peak_fraction=0.0439
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:57:19.137795+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:57:19.145058+00:00 elapsed_s=0.007 ms=0.054160
shape=3 variant=solution tflops=0.620 gbps=164.869 ms=0.054
shape=3 solution_peak_fraction=0.0916
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:57:19.905671+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T20:57:19.914750+00:00 elapsed_s=0.009 ms=0.074016
shape=4
... (124 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (8979 chars)
This is worse than before! The interleaving with `tl.join` + `tl.permute` + `tl.reshape` adds significant overhead. Let me go back to the two-dot approach which was faster.
Actually, the performance dropped:
- Shape 0: 394 GB/s (was 439 GB/s) — 10% drop
- Shape 1: 150 GB/s (was 327 GB/s) — 54% drop!
- Shape 2: 79 GB/s (was 126 GB/s) — 37% drop
- Shape 3: 165 GB/s (was 200 GB/s) — 18% drop
- Shape 4: 429 GB/s (was 459 GB/s) — 7% drop
The `tl.join` + `tl.permute` + `tl.reshape` chain is very expensive. The single `tl.dot` with a (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) x (BLOCK_K, BLOCK_N) might also be less efficient than two smaller dots for large N tiles.
Let me go back to the two-dot approach. The version that got 0.1546 peak_fraction was the best so far.
Actually wait, let me go back and look at the performance more carefully. The two-dot version got:
- Shape 0: 439 GB/s
- Shape 1: 327 GB/s
- Shape 2: 126 GB/s
- Shape 3: 200 GB/s
- Shape 4: 459 GB/s
- Geomean: 0.1546
But the manual profiling showed much better numbers. Let me compare what configs the heuristic picks vs what the manual profiling showed as best.
Shape 0: heuristic picks (4, 64, 128), manual best was (1, 64, 128) at 526 GB/s
Shape 1: heuristic picks (8, 128, 128), manual best was (8, 128, 128) at 377 GB/s
Shape 2: heuristic picks (16, 128, 128), manual best was (16, 128, 128) at 133 GB/s
Shape 3: heuristic picks (4, 64, 128), manual best was (4, 64, 128) at 256 GB/s
Shape 4: heuristic picks (8, 64, 128), manual best was (8, 64, 128) at 535 GB/s
So the configs match! But the benchmark performance is lower than manual profiling. The difference must be due to:
1. `do_bench` vs `benchmark.py` measurement methodology
2. Overhead from Model.forward
3. Something else I'm missing
Wait, in the manual profiling, I used `GROUP_M=8` for all configs. In my heuristic, GROUP_M is also 8 for all shapes. But wait — GROUP_M only makes sense when num_pid_m > GROUP_M. For M=1 and BLOCK_M=4, num_pid_m = 1, which means GROUP_M=8 is meaningless (only 1 group of rows). The GROUP_M code should handle this correctly.
But there's one thing I changed: in my manual profiling, I didn't set `num_warps` at all, so Triton auto-selected it. In my solution, I also don't set `num_warps`, so Triton auto-selects. So that should be the same.
Wait, actually there's another difference. In the manual profiling, I called `_gemm_w4a16_kernel[grid]` directly. In the solution, I also call it directly. But check.py and benchmark.py might do different things...
Actually, I wonder if Triton is auto-tuning some aspect internally (like tile sizes for `tl.dot`). The `tl.dot` auto-tuning might select differently on each invocation.
Let me try: go back to the two-dot approach with the exact same kernel code as before, but also verify that the performance numbers are consistent.
Wait, actually, let me just go back to the working two-dot kernel and focus on getting the numbers up. Let me restore the kernel to the version that got 0.1546.
Actually, let me think about this differently. The current kernel with the interleaving performs worse because the `tl.join` + `tl.permute` + `tl.reshape` operations introduce register copies and shared memory traffic that negate the benefit of a single `tl.dot`.
Let me go back to the two-dot kernel (which was simpler and faster) and try other optimizations:
1. Try num_warps=8
2. Try explicit num_stages
3. Try num_warps auto-selection (no override)
Actually, let me try a different approach. What if I write a kernel using a (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) slicing of x but with manual even/odd separation using `tl.trans` or `tl.reshape` instead of stride loads?
Here's an idea: load x as a (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K/2, 2) tensor directly:
```python
x_ptrs = x_base + k_abs[None, :] * stride_xk
x_full = tl.load(x_ptrs, mask_x, other=0.0) # (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K)
x_2d = tl.reshape(x_full, (BLOCK_M * BLOCK_K // 2, 2))
x_even = tl.reshape(x_2d[:, 0], (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K // 2))
x_odd = tl.reshape(x_2d[:, 1], (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K // 2))
```
Hmm, but Triton might not support slicing like `x_2d[:, 0]`. And the reshape might not interleave correctly.
Actually, you know what, let me just go back to the two separate strided loads for x. The performance is fine - it was getting 439 GB/s for decode, which is decent. The overhead of strided x loads is negligible given that x is only 8 KB out of 26 MB total data.
Let me focus on what actually matters: getting the kernel closer to the manual profiling numbers and pushing performance higher.
Let me go back to the two-dot kernel and try:
1. num_warps=8 (more warps = better memory latency hiding)
2. num_stages=2 (reduce shared memory pressure)
Actually, let me also check: does Triton's `tl.dot` on Blackwell use wgmma instructions? Or mma? The instruction type affects what tile sizes are efficient.
For Blackwell (SM120), Triton should use the new wgmma instructions for asynchronous tensor core operations. These instructions have specific tile size requirements for optimal throughput.
For bf16 inputs:
- wgmma.fence followed by wgmma.commit_group and wgmma.wait_group
- The MMA tile sizes might be M=64, N=8-256, K=32
Hmm, this is getting very hardware-specific. Let me just try different things and measure.
Let me go back to the two-dot kernel and try:
1. Option A: Restore the two-dot kernel exactly as before (was getting 0.1546)
2. Option B: Try with different num_warps
3. Option C: Try with num_stages=2
Actually, let me just restore the working kernel and then try variations.
But wait — actually, let me look at the problem from the perspective of the Triton MMA instruction. On Blackwell, `tl.dot` with bf16 might use the new Blackwell MMA instructions. The optimal tile size depends on the instruction.
Looking at the Blackwell PTX ISA, there are new `tcgen05` instructions for the 5th-gen tensor cores. These have specific shapes.
But Triton handles this automatically. The issue might be that my block sizes don't align well with the MMA tile sizes.
Let me look at what happens when I vary BLOCK_M and BLOCK_N for the decode case:
From the profiling:
- M=1, N=32, K=128: 504 GB/s
- M=1, N=64, K=128: 526 GB/s
- M=1, N=128, K=128: 422 GB/s
- M=4, N=32, K=128: 503 GB/s
- M=4, N=64, K=128: 525 GB/s
- M=4, N=128, K=128: 422 GB/s
So BLOCK_N=64 is the sweet spot, giving ~525 GB/s. That's 29% of peak bandwidth. This might be close to the practical limit for this kernel on this hardware.
Actually, let me check: is the "1.8 TB/s" the theoretical peak or the sustainable bandwidth? The RTX PRO 6000 has GDDR7 memory at 1.8 TB/s. Let me check what copy bandwidth you can actually get...
Actually, let me think about something else. The kernel reads:
- w_q: 25 MB of uint8 (but it's 1 byte per 2 weights)
- scales: ~0.8 MB of bf16
- zeros: ~0.8 MB of bf16
- x: M*K*2 bytes (tiny for M=1)
- output: M*N*2 bytes
Total for shape 0: ~26.8 MB. At 439 GB/s, that's 61 µs. But wait, the "bytes_moved" formula in benchmark.py might be different. Let me check...
The formula is: `M*K*2 + (K/2)*N + (K/128)*N*2 + (K/128)*N*2 + M*N*2`
For shape 0: 8192 + 25165824 + 1572864 + 1572864 + 24576 = 26771456 ≈ 26.8 MB
At 1.8 TB/s: 0.0149 ms = 14.9 µs (theoretical minimum)
At 439 GB/s: 0.061 ms = 61 µs (our achieved)
Ratio: 14.9/61 = 24.4% of peak
Is 24.4% of peak bandwidth reasonable? For a compute kernel (not a pure copy), yes, it's actually quite good. A pure memcpy would get closer to 80-90%, but a kernel with compute mixed in will get less.
So maybe I should focus on getting the multi-M cases faster rather than the decode case. Let me look at where the biggest gap is.
For shape 1 (M=32): 327 GB/s achieved, 377 GB/s best manual. Let me check what config the heuristic picks for this...
Heuristic: M=32 → returns (8, 128, 128, 8). Manual best: (8, 128, 128) at 377 GB/s. Same config! But benchmark shows 327 GB/s. The discrepancy might be measurement noise or overhead.
Actually, wait. Let me re-run the manual profiling but using `benchmark.py`'s timing methodology instead of `do_bench` to see if the numbers match.
You know what, let me just focus on getting the solution to pass and be as fast as possible. Let me go back to the working two-dot kernel and see if I can squeeze out more performance.
Let me try one more thing: what if I increase the K loop tile to GROUP_SIZE=128 but use a different BLOCK_K? Actually, the profiling showed that BLOCK_K=128 is consistently best.
Let me try different num_warps and num_stages on the working kernel.
Actually, maybe I should try a completely different kernel design. Let me think about what a CUDA C++ kernel via `torch.utils.cpp_extension.load_inline` would look like. This would give me direct control over tensor core instructions and memory access patterns.
But that's a much bigger undertaking. Let me first try to get the Triton kernel as fast as possible.
Let me go back to the two-dot kernel, which had the best results, and see if I can tune it further.
in 670out 0cache_r 98688cache_w 0
assistant
The interleaving approach is slower. Let me go back to the two-dot kernel and try to optimize it further with num_warps tuning and profiling.
in 670out 0cache_r 98688cache_w 0
assistant
in 670out 0cache_r 98688cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (147 chars)
I've gone back to the two-dot kernel but now with autotune with a carefully curated set of configs. Let me first check correctness, then benchmark.
in 82out 0cache_r 105088cache_w 0
assistant
in 82out 0cache_r 105088cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
assistant
reasoning (40 chars)
Good, correctness passes. Now benchmark.
in 97out 0cache_r 105216cache_w 0
assistant
in 97out 0cache_r 105216cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (1625 chars) — TRUNCATED
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:01:16.979905+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:01:18.749282+00:00 elapsed_s=1.769 ms=0.065168
shape=0 variant=solution tflops=1.545 gbps=410.807 ms=0.065
shape=0 solution_peak_fraction=0.2282
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:01:19.402555+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:01:21.092584+00:00 elapsed_s=1.690 ms=0.090368
shape=1 variant=solution tflops=35.646 gbps=307.490 ms=0.090
shape=1 solution_peak_fraction=0.1708
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:01:21.749635+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:01:23.621193+00:00 elapsed_s=1.872 ms=0.284992
shape=2 variant=solution tflops=90.423 gbps=123.257 ms=0.285
shape=2 solution_peak_fraction=0.0685
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:01:23.825245+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:01:25.439223+00:00 elapsed_s=1.614 ms=0.050416
shape=3 variant=solution tflops=0.666 gbps=177.112 ms=0.050
shape=3 solution_peak_fraction=0.0984
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:01:26.190673+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:01:27.842971+00:00 elapsed_s=1.652 ms=0.074768
shape=
... (125 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (7274 chars)
The results are:
- Shape 0: 411 GB/s, 0.2282 peak fraction
- Shape 1: 307 GB/s, 0.1708 peak fraction
- Shape 2: 123 GB/s, 0.0685 peak fraction
- Shape 3: 177 GB/s, 0.0984 peak fraction
- Shape 4: 425 GB/s, 0.2362 peak fraction
Geometric mean: 0.1441
This is slightly worse than the previous best (0.1546). The autotune overhead is adding time and the selected configs might not be optimal.
OK, let me take a step back. The issue is that the kernel is limited by something fundamental. Let me think about what are the key performance limiters and whether there's a way to dramatically improve.
Let me try a completely different approach: **CUDA C++ kernel via `torch.utils.cpp_extension.load_inline`**. This gives me direct control over tensor core MMA instructions and memory access patterns.
On Blackwell SM120, the key tensor core instructions for bf16 are:
- `wgmma.fence` / `wgmma.commit_group` / `wgmma.wait_group` — asynchronous warp-group MMA
- These operate on specific tile sizes (M=64, N=8-256, K=32 for bf16)
A custom CUDA kernel could:
1. Load packed int4 weights into shared memory
2. Unpack and dequant in shared memory (or directly into registers)
3. Use tensor core wgmma instructions for the matrix multiply
4. Store the result
This is more complex but could achieve much higher performance.
Actually, wait. Let me first check if there's a simpler approach. Let me look at how bitsandbytes implements their gemv_4bit kernel and see if I can adapt it.
Actually, bitsandbytes is mentioned but I'm forbidden from importing its functions. I could look at the source code for inspiration though.
Let me try yet another approach: what if I use a different Triton kernel strategy that's more optimized for the decode case?
For M=1 (decode), the kernel is essentially doing a GEMV (matrix-vector product). Triton has special support for this via `tl.dot` with M=1. But my kernel is already handling this case.
Let me think about what's different between my manual profiling (showing 526 GB/s for shape 0) and the benchmark (showing 411 GB/s).
Possible causes:
1. **Measurement methodology**: `triton.testing.do_bench` vs `benchmark.py`'s timing.
2. **Compiler optimizations**: Triton might compile differently across invocations.
3. **GPU state**: Thermal throttling, power limits, other GPU activity.
Let me check if there's a warmup issue. In `benchmark.py`, `time_variant` is called which should do proper warmup and timing. But maybe the kernel isn't fully warmed up.
Actually, I just realized: the autotuner does its own timing during the autotune phase, and then the kernel runs with the best config. But the autotuner's timing includes warmup, and the final kernel launch might not be with the absolute best config because of noise.
Let me try a much simpler approach: no autotune, just use the manually-profiled best configs directly. This should be both faster and more reliable.
Let me also try: instead of the group-size-sweeping approach, let me use a simple heuristic that directly maps shapes to the best configs I found during profiling.
For shape 0 (M=1, N=12288): BLOCK_M=1, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128, GROUP_M=8
For shape 1 (M=32, N=12288): BLOCK_M=8, BLOCK_N=128, BLOCK_K=128, GROUP_M=8
For shape 2 (M=256, N=12288): BLOCK_M=16, BLOCK_N=128, BLOCK_K=128, GROUP_M=8
For shape 3 (M=1, N=4096): BLOCK_M=4, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128, GROUP_M=8
For shape 4 (M=16, N=14336): BLOCK_M=8, BLOCK_N=64, BLOCK_K=128, GROUP_M=8
These are the exact best configs from my profiling. Let me use these directly without autotune.
Wait, for shape 0, the manual best was BLOCK_M=1, but my earlier heuristic used BLOCK_M=4. Let me check again...
From profiling:
- M=1, N=64, K=128: 526 GB/s (BLOCK_M=1, BLOCK_N=64)
- M=4, N=64, K=128: 525 GB/s (BLOCK_M=4, BLOCK_N=64)
They're essentially the same. But let me use BLOCK_M=1 for M=1 to avoid wasted work.
Actually wait, the manual profiling also showed that BLOCK_M=1 vs BLOCK_M=4 had essentially identical performance for N=12288 (526 vs 525). So it doesn't matter much.
Let me go back to a simple heuristic-based approach with the exact best configs from profiling.
Actually, you know what, let me just try the CUDA C++ approach. The Triton kernel seems to be hitting a wall at about 25-30% of peak bandwidth. A hand-tuned CUDA kernel using wgmma instructions could potentially do much better.
But writing a CUDA kernel from scratch is a lot of work. Let me think about whether it's worth it...
Actually, I want to try one more thing with the Triton kernel: **use BF16 for the dequant math instead of FP32**. This would reduce register pressure and conversion overhead.
The dequant formula is: `w_deq = (w_int4 - zero) * scale`
w_int4 is 0-15 (uint8).
zero is a bf16 value (0-15 range).
scale is a bf16 value.
The subtraction `w_int4 - zero` and multiplication `* scale` can be done in bf16. The key question is precision.
With bf16:
- int4 values: 0-15, exact in bf16
- zero: 0-15, exact in bf16
- scale: arbitrary bf16
- w_deq = (w_int4 - zero) * scale
The issue: w_int4 is uint8, and in Triton, converting uint8 to bf16 might lose precision (uint8 can represent 0-255, but we're using 0-15, which is fine in bf16). The subtraction and multiplication in bf16 might have some rounding error compared to f32.
But the tolerance is 0.10 abs/rel, which is quite generous. BF16 computation should be within this tolerance.
Let me try bf16 dequant and see if it's faster.
Actually wait, the issue isn't precision of the final result, it's whether Triton supports uint8→bf16 conversion. In Triton 3.6, `tl.load` from a uint8 pointer might not support `.to(tl.bfloat16)` directly.
Let me try:
```python
w_lo_bf = w_lo.to(tl.bfloat16) # uint8 → bf16?
```
If this works, it saves a conversion step.
Actually, in the current kernel, the chain is:
1. w_packed: load as uint8
2. w_lo = w_packed & 0x0F: still uint8
3. w_lo.to(tl.float32): uint8 → f32
4. Subtract z_g_f32, multiply by s_g_f32: f32 arithmetic
5. .to(tl.bfloat16): f32 → bf16
If I do instead:
```python
w_lo_bf = ((w_lo.to(tl.bfloat16) - z_g_bf) * s_g_bf)
# or
w_lo_f32 = w_lo.to(tl.float32)
w_lo_bf = ((w_lo_f32 - z_g_f32) * s_g_f32).to(tl.bfloat16)
```
The difference is just bf16 vs f32 arithmetic for the sub and mul. This shouldn't change performance much because:
1. The bf16 sub/mul take fewer registers than f32
2. But the conversion overhead is the same
3. The actual compute is minimal compared to the dot product
Actually wait, there's a more impactful optimization: I can avoid the explicit `.to(tl.bfloat16)` conversion if I do the dequant math in bf16:
```python
z_g_bf = z_g.to(tl.bfloat16)
s_g_bf = s_g.to(tl.bfloat16)
w_lo_bf = (w_lo.to(tl.bfloat16) - z_g_bf[None, :]) * s_g_bf[None, :]
w_hi_bf = (w_hi.to(tl.bfloat16) - z_g_bf[None, :]) * s_g_bf[None, :]
```
This avoids the f32 intermediate and the f32→bf16 conversion at the end. But it might have precision issues. Let me try it.
Actually, let me try something even simpler: don't do the arithmetic in Triton at all. Pre-compute the dequant values and store them as part of the model. No wait, that defeats the purpose — the whole point is to fuse unpack+dequant+GEMM.
OK let me try the bf16 math approach and see if it's faster and passes correctness.
in 703out 0cache_r 105344cache_w 0
assistant
Let me try a version with bf16 dequant math (avoiding f32 intermediate) and simpler heuristic config:
in 703out 0cache_r 105344cache_w 0
assistant
in 703out 0cache_r 105344cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (959 chars)
In this version, I changed the dequant to use bf16 math: `(w_lo.to(tl.float32) - z_g[None, :]).to(tl.bfloat16) * s_g[None, :]`.
Wait, actually I still do the subtraction in f32 then convert to bf16 before multiplying by scale. Let me think about whether this is actually the right approach.
The issue is that `w_lo` is uint8, and I need to convert it to a float type. `w_lo.to(tl.bfloat16)` should work since 0-15 values are exactly representable in bf16. But Triton might not support uint8→bf16 conversion directly.
Actually, `w_lo.to(tl.float32)` then `.to(tl.bfloat16)` then multiply by scale — this adds two conversions (uint8→f32 then f32→bf16). Alternatively, `(w_lo.to(tl.float32) - z_g[None, :]) * s_g[None, :]` is all f32, then `.to(tl.bfloat16)` at the end is one conversion.
The current code does: f32 subtract, bf16 convert, bf16 multiply. Let me check if this compiles and passes correctness.
Let me check correctness first, then benchmark.
in 4824out 0cache_r 105984cache_w 0
assistant
in 4824out 0cache_r 105984cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
assistant
reasoning (27 chars)
Good. Now let me benchmark.
in 222out 0cache_r 111104cache_w 0
assistant
in 222out 0cache_r 111104cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (1625 chars) — TRUNCATED
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:02:15.511874+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:02:15.723388+00:00 elapsed_s=0.212 ms=0.059648
shape=0 variant=solution tflops=1.688 gbps=448.824 ms=0.060
shape=0 solution_peak_fraction=0.2493
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:02:16.374662+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:02:16.384805+00:00 elapsed_s=0.010 ms=0.088064
shape=1 variant=solution tflops=36.578 gbps=315.535 ms=0.088
shape=1 solution_peak_fraction=0.1753
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:02:17.036687+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:02:17.058266+00:00 elapsed_s=0.022 ms=0.281360
shape=2 variant=solution tflops=91.590 gbps=124.848 ms=0.281
shape=2 solution_peak_fraction=0.0694
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:02:17.270426+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:02:17.278094+00:00 elapsed_s=0.008 ms=0.044544
shape=3 variant=solution tflops=0.753 gbps=200.460 ms=0.045
shape=3 solution_peak_fraction=0.1114
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:02:18.027682+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:02:18.069594+00:00 elapsed_s=0.042 ms=0.070592
shape=
... (125 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (4862 chars)
Results:
- Shape 0: 449 GB/s, 0.2493 peak (up from 439! — bf16 dequant helps)
- Shape 1: 316 GB/s, 0.1753 peak
- Shape 2: 125 GB/s, 0.0694 peak
- Shape 3: 200 GB/s, 0.1114 peak (same as before)
- Shape 4: 450 GB/s, 0.2501 peak (up from 459? Actually 459 was earlier...)
Geomean: 0.1532
This is close to the previous best of 0.1546. The bf16 dequant helps a bit for some shapes.
OK so I'm hitting a wall around 0.15 geomean with the Triton approach. Let me think about whether there are more radical things to try.
Actually, let me look at this from the perspective of what the problem requires. The problem says "regime: memory" and the key metric is memory bandwidth utilization. But the geometric mean calculation includes all 5 shapes, not just the decode case.
Looking at shape 2 (M=256, N=12288, K=4096): 125 GB/s, 0.0694 peak. This is the worst performer and drags down the geomean.
For shape 2, the data is:
- FLOPs: 2 * 256 * 12288 * 4096 = 25.8 GFLOPS
- Bytes: ~35 MB
- At 125 GB/s: 0.28 ms
- At 125 GB/s, it's still memory-bound (not compute-bound). But 125 GB/s is only 6.9% of peak bandwidth.
Why is shape 2 so slow? With M=256 and BLOCK_M=16, N=12288 and BLOCK_N=128:
- Grid: (256/16) * (12288/128) = 16 * 96 = 1536 blocks
- Each block does 32 K-iterations
With 1536 blocks, each SM runs ~16 blocks. Each block handles a (16, 128) output tile, doing 32 iterations of the K loop.
The issue might be that with 1536 blocks, we're launching many small blocks, which has high launch overhead. With BLOCK_M=16, the blocks are reasonably sized (16*128=2048 output elements).
But 1536 blocks is still a lot. Let me try larger BLOCK_M for shape 2 to reduce the grid size:
- BLOCK_M=32: grid = 8 * 96 = 768 blocks
- BLOCK_M=64: grid = 4 * 96 = 384 blocks
Let me try BLOCK_M=32 for M=256.
Actually wait, my heuristic for M=256 returns (16, 128, BK, 8). Let me try (32, 128, BK, 8) or even (64, 128, BK, 8).
But from the manual profiling, the best for M=256 was (16, 128, 128) at 133 GB/s. Let me try (32, 128, 128) manually.
Actually wait, in my profiling I tested up to BLOCK_M=16 for shape 2 (M=256). Let me also try BLOCK_M=32 and BLOCK_M=64.
But actually, the profiling only tested BLOCK_M up to 16 because I was using the same loop for all shapes. Let me try larger BLOCK_M values.
Hmm, actually looking back at the profiling output for shape 2:
```
M=16 N=128 K=128 ms=0.2642 GB/s=133
```
This was the best at the time. But I only tested up to BLOCK_M=16. Let me try BLOCK_M=32, 64.
Actually wait, for M=256 and BLOCK_M=32: 8 blocks along M. For BLOCK_M=64: 4 blocks. Larger BLOCK_M means fewer blocks, less launch overhead, and more work per block. This should be better for larger M.
For the smaller M cases, large BLOCK_M wastes compute (masked rows). For larger M, we should use larger BLOCK_M.
Let me try: for M >= 32, use BLOCK_M=32; for M >= 128, use BLOCK_M=64.
Actually, let me think about this more carefully. For a compute-bound regime, having fewer, bigger blocks is better. For memory-bound, having more blocks helps hide latency.
For shape 2 (M=256), the compute is significant (25.8 GFLOPS). At 125 TFLOPS peak, that's 0.2 ms. At 125 GB/s, that's 0.28 ms. So it's memory-bound (memory time > compute time). More blocks help hide memory latency.
But 1536 blocks might be too many. Let me try BLOCK_M=32 (768 blocks) and see.
Actually, let me just try it quickly:
- For M <= 1: (1 or 4, 64, 128)
- For M <= 8: (8, 64, 128)
- For M <= 16: (8, 128, 128) if N >= 12k else (8, 64, 128)
- For M <= 64: (16 or 32, 128, 128)
- For M > 64: (32 or 64, 128, 128)
Let me try M=32 for the 64-256 range and see.
Actually wait, I need to think about what BLOCK sizes work well with Triton's MMA instructions. On Blackwell, the MMA shapes for bf16 are typically:
- MMA shape: 16x16 or 32x8 for the basic mma operation
- Warp-group MMA (wgmma): 64xNxK shapes
Triton handles this automatically, but having BLOCK sizes that are multiples of the MMA tile is important for efficiency.
64 is a good multiple. 128 is also good. 32 is good. 16 is good. So my block sizes should be fine.
Let me just try different block sizes for the larger M cases and see what happens. Let me run a quick profiling script.
Actually, instead of more profiling, let me try a smarter heuristic. Let me think about what BLOCK sizes maximize occupancy and utilization.
For a balanced configuration:
- The number of blocks should be enough to fill the GPU (96 SMs * N blocks/SM)
- Each block should have enough work to justify its launch overhead
- The tile sizes should match MMA instruction shapes
For shape 2 (M=256, N=12288):
- With BLOCK_M=32, BLOCK_N=128: grid = 8 * 96 = 768 blocks, 8 blocks/SM (good)
- With BLOCK_M=64, BLOCK_N=128: grid = 4 * 96 = 384 blocks, 4 blocks/SM (OK)
Let me update the heuristic to use larger BLOCK_M for larger M.
in 700out 0cache_r 111360cache_w 0
assistant
Let me try larger block sizes for bigger M shapes and fine-tune the heuristic:
in 700out 0cache_r 111360cache_w 0
assistant
in 700out 0cache_r 111360cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (803 chars)
I changed GROUP_M from 8 to 4 and adjusted the block sizes. Let me benchmark this.
Wait, for M=1, GROUP_M=4 should be fine since num_pid_m=1 < GROUP_M anyway. But let me think about whether GROUP_M matters for performance...
GROUP_M controls how program IDs are grouped for L2 cache reuse. Higher GROUP_M means programs that share the same N range are launched closer together, which helps when they share weight data. But for M=1 (where num_pid_m=1), GROUP_M is irrelevant since there's only one row group.
For M=32 (with BLOCK_M=16): num_pid_m=2, GROUP_M=4 means one group of 2 (since min(2, 4)=2). Fine.
For M=256 (with BLOCK_M=32): num_pid_m=8, GROUP_M=4 means 2 groups of 4. This ensures programs within each group of 4 share the same N range, improving L2 reuse.
Let me benchmark this config.
in 2263out 0cache_r 112000cache_w 0
assistant
in 2263out 0cache_r 112000cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (1629 chars) — TRUNCATED
PASS
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:06:17.788183+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:06:17.997679+00:00 elapsed_s=0.209 ms=0.060128
shape=0 variant=solution tflops=1.674 gbps=445.241 ms=0.060
shape=0 solution_peak_fraction=0.2474
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:06:18.647268+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:06:18.658115+00:00 elapsed_s=0.011 ms=0.102400
shape=1 variant=solution tflops=31.457 gbps=271.360 ms=0.102
shape=1 solution_peak_fraction=0.1508
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:06:19.323301+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:06:19.349508+00:00 elapsed_s=0.026 ms=0.355120
shape=2 variant=solution tflops=72.566 gbps=98.917 ms=0.355
shape=2 solution_peak_fraction=0.0550
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:06:19.562683+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:06:19.569295+00:00 elapsed_s=0.007 ms=0.043568
shape=3 variant=solution tflops=0.770 gbps=204.950 ms=0.044
shape=3 solution_peak_fraction=0.1139
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:06:20.352305+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:06:20.361090+00:00 elapsed_s=0.009 ms=0.069712
sh
... (129 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (1396 chars)
This is worse! Shape 1 and 2 got significantly worse with BLOCK_M=16 and 32 respectively:
- Shape 1: 271 GB/s (was 316) — BLOCK_M=16 is too big for M=32!
- Shape 2: 99 GB/s (was 125) — BLOCK_M=32 is too big for M=256?
Wait, for M=256 with BLOCK_M=32, num_pid_m=8, and with BLOCK_N=128, num_pid_n=96. Grid = 8*96 = 768 blocks. Each block does a (32, 128) output tile.
Hmm, maybe the issue is that BLOCK_M=32 with BLOCK_N=128 creates a 32*128=4096 output tile, which is too large and causes register spilling.
Let me go back to the previous configs which worked better. The best config was:
- M<=1: (1 or 4, 64, 128, 8)
- M<=8: (8, 64, 128, 8)
- M<=16: (8, 64 or 128, 128, 8)
- M<=32: (8, 128, 128, 8)
- M<=64: (16, 128, 128, 8)
- Else: (16, 128, 128, 8)
This gave 0.1532 geomean. Let me restore this.
Actually wait, looking at the profiling data again:
- Shape 1 (M=32): best was (8, 128, 128) at 377 GB/s. Heuristic used (16, 128, 128) → 271 GB/s. So BLOCK_M=8 is better.
My previous heuristic for M≤32 used BLOCK_M=8. Let me restore the exact configs that worked.
Let me go back to the best performing version (0.1546 geomean) and think about what else to try.
Actually, the previous version that got 0.1546 and the bf16-dequant version that got 0.1532 are very similar. Let me use the bf16-dequant version with the correct heuristics.
Let me restore the heuristics to what worked best.
in 661out 0cache_r 114560cache_w 0
assistant
The larger blocks hurt. Let me restore the working configs. Let me revert to the heuristics that worked best:
in 661out 0cache_r 114560cache_w 0
assistant
in 661out 0cache_r 114560cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (1450 chars)
Wait, I should also think about shape 1 (M=32). With my heuristic, M=32 falls into the ≤32 case which returns (8, 128, BK, 8). That was the best from profiling. Good.
But shape 2 (M=256) falls into the "else" case which returns (16, 128, BK, 8). But maybe BLOCK_M=16 is too small for M=256 — the grid is 256/16=16 blocks along M, times 12288/128=96 along N, total 1536 blocks. That's a lot.
However, from the profiling, (16, 128, 128) was the best for M=256 (at 133 GB/s). So let me keep it.
Actually, wait. The profiling only tested up to BLOCK_M=16. Maybe BLOCK_M=32 with BLOCK_N=64 would be better for M=256. Let me check...
With BLOCK_M=32, BLOCK_N=64:
- Grid: 8 * 192 = 1536 blocks (same as BLOCK_M=16, BLOCK_N=128!)
- But the tile is (32, 64) = 2048 elements (vs 16*128=2048, same)
With BLOCK_M=32, BLOCK_N=128:
- Grid: 8 * 96 = 768 blocks (half the blocks)
- Tile is (32, 128) = 4096 elements
The issue might be register pressure. With (32, 128), the accumulator is 32*128*4 = 16 KB in float32. That's a lot of registers.
Let me try BLOCK_M=32, BLOCK_N=64 for M >= 256:
- Grid: 8 * 192 = 1536 blocks
- Tile: (32, 64) = 2048 elements → 8 KB accumulator
Hmm, but 1536 blocks with 96 SMs = 16 blocks/SM. That's reasonable.
Actually, let me just try a few more configs on shape 2 specifically:
```python
# Test for M=256, N=12288, K=4096
for BM in [16, 32, 64]:
for BN in [64, 128]:
...
```
Actually, let me do this quickly.
in 1202out 0cache_r 115200cache_w 0
assistant
Let me quickly profile shape 2 (M=256) with larger BLOCK_M to find the best config:
in 1202out 0cache_r 115200cache_w 0
assistant
in 1202out 0cache_r 115200cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (635 chars)
M= 16 N= 64 K= 64 ms=0.3527 GB/s=100 grid=16x192
M= 16 N= 64 K=128 ms=0.3591 GB/s=98 grid=16x192
M= 16 N= 128 K= 64 ms=0.2621 GB/s=134 grid=16x96
M= 16 N= 128 K=128 ms=0.2696 GB/s=130 grid=16x96
M= 32 N= 64 K= 64 ms=0.5345 GB/s=66 grid=8x192
M= 32 N= 64 K=128 ms=0.5477 GB/s=64 grid=8x192
M= 32 N= 128 K= 64 ms=0.3543 GB/s=99 grid=8x96
M= 32 N= 128 K=128 ms=0.3420 GB/s=103 grid=8x96
M= 64 N= 64 K= 64 ms=0.6310 GB/s=56 grid=4x192
M= 64 N= 64 K=128 ms=0.6492 GB/s=54 grid=4x192
M= 64 N= 128 K= 64 ms=0.3963 GB/s=89 grid=4x96
M= 64 N= 128 K=128 ms=0.4219 GB/s=83 grid=4x96
assistant
reasoning (4018 chars)
OK so for M=256 (shape 2):
- Best: (16, 128, 64) at 134 GB/s and (16, 128, 128) at 130 GB/s.
- Larger BLOCK_M hurts performance — (32, 128, 64) gets only 99 GB/s, (64, 128, 64) gets only 89 GB/s.
So BLOCK_M=16 is indeed the best for M=256. My heuristic was right.
The issue is just that shape 2 is fundamentally slow due to the large M creating many blocks. The performance drops because there's just too much work to do (25.8 GFLOPS).
Actually wait — 130 GB/s is the bandwidth. The total data is ~35 MB. At 130 GB/s, it takes 0.27 ms. But the compute is 25.8 GFLOPS. At 125 TFLOPS peak, compute would take 0.21 ms. So it's partially compute-bound, partially memory-bound.
Actually, maybe the issue is that my profiling uses `triton.testing.do_bench` but `benchmark.py` uses something different. Let me check what `benchmark.py` reports for shape 2...
From the last benchmark run: shape 2 was at 125 GB/s (close to 130 GB/s from profiling). So the numbers match.
The fundamental issue is that this kernel is just not that fast for larger M. The two-tl.dot approach with int4 dequant has significant overhead per K iteration. For M=256, there's more work per dot product but the dequant overhead is the same.
Let me think about whether there's a way to speed up shape 2...
Actually, for larger M, the dequant overhead becomes negligible compared to the GEMM compute. The bottleneck should be the tensor core throughput. Let me check if `tl.dot` is using the most efficient MMA instruction.
For bf16 on Blackwell, Triton should use wgmma instructions. The MMA shape for bf16 wgmma is typically M=64, N=?, K=?. The exact shape depends on the instruction variant.
With BLOCK_M=16 and BLOCK_K/2=64 (even K rows), the dot product is `tl.dot(x_even, w_lo_bf)` where x_even is (16, 64) and w_lo_bf is (64, 128). This is a (16, 64) @ (64, 128) matrix multiply per half-K iteration. The MMA operation would tile this into smaller operations.
On Blackwell, the MMA instructions for bf16 typically work on tiles like 16x16x16 or 32x8x16. A (16, 64) @ (64, 128) multiply would be decomposed into many small MMA operations.
Actually, the key insight might be that with BLOCK_K=128 (and therefore K/2=64 for even rows), the K dimension of the dot product is only 64. That's small. Tensor cores are most efficient with larger K dimensions (like 128+). With K=64, the MMA instruction might not fill the compute pipeline completely.
But BLOCK_K=128 is the maximum I can use (it's the group size). And for shape 2, the total K=4096, so there are 32 K-iterations. Within each iteration, the dot product is small (K_dim=64 for even rows).
Hmm, can I increase the effective K dimension by processing multiple groups per iteration? If I set BLOCK_K=256 (spanning 2 groups), I'd need to handle the group boundary in the dequant. Let me think...
If BLOCK_K=256:
- w_packed is (128, BLOCK_N) — 2x the data
- The dequant needs two different scales/zeros (one for each group)
- x_even and x_odd are each (BLOCK_M, 128) — 2x the data
- Dot products are (BLOCK_M, 128) @ (128, BLOCK_N) — larger K dimension
This could improve tensor core utilization! The trade-off is more register usage and potentially register spilling.
Let me try BLOCK_K=256 with group-boundary-aware dequant. Within a 256-element K block, the first 128 elements use scale[gid] and the last 128 use scale[gid+1].
But this makes the kernel more complex. For now, let me see if there are simpler optimizations.
Actually, I think the most impactful thing I can do is write a CUDA C++ kernel using load_inline that directly uses tensor core MMA instructions. This gives me full control over memory layout, tensor core usage, and instruction scheduling.
But that's a significant undertaking. Let me first check if there's a simpler path.
Actually, you know what, let me check how the bitsandbytes gemv_4bit performs. Let me run the benchmark with baselines to see the SOTA numbers:
The SOTA wasn't showing up before. Let me check if bitsandbytes is installed.
in 498out 0cache_r 117632cache_w 0
assistant
Let me check if bitsandbytes SOTA reference is available:
in 498out 0cache_r 117632cache_w 0
assistant
in 498out 0cache_r 117632cache_w 0
tool
stdout (58 chars)
bitsandbytes not available: No module named 'bitsandbytes'
assistant
reasoning (3391 chars)
bitsandbytes is not installed. That's fine — the SOTA reference isn't available, so we can't compare against it.
OK let me take a step back and think about what to do. The current kernel gets ~0.15 peak fraction, which is above the 0.1 threshold. But it could be better. Let me think about more radical approaches.
One idea: write a CUDA C++ kernel via `torch.utils.cpp_extension.load_inline`. This gives much more control over:
1. Memory access patterns (shared memory, coalescing)
2. Tensor core instruction selection (wgmma on Blackwell)
3. Register allocation
4. Software pipelining
The CUDA kernel would:
1. Load a tile of packed int4 weights into shared memory
2. Load a tile of x into shared memory
3. Unpack and dequant weights in shared memory / registers
4. Use wgmma instructions for the matrix multiply
5. Accumulate and store the result
But this is a LOT of code. Let me think about whether there's a middle ground...
Actually, let me try something: what if I use a simpler but more pipelined Triton kernel? The key issue might be that I'm not fully utilizing the memory pipeline.
Let me try using `num_stages=4` (more aggressive pipelining) and see if that helps.
Also, I noticed something: the kernel loads x_even and x_odd as two separate strided loads. For M=1, the strided loads are barely harmful. But let me see if I can combine them into a single load and split.
Actually wait, I already tried that and the permute/reshape approach was slower. But maybe there's a simpler split approach.
Let me try: load x as 2x the rows with half the columns, then reshape:
```python
# Instead of strided loads:
x_full = tl.load(x_base + (k_start + tl.arange(0, BLOCK_K))[None, :] * stride_xk, ...)
# x_full is (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K)
# I want x_even as (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K//2) with columns 0,2,4,... and x_odd as columns 1,3,5,...
# Reshape to (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K//2, 2)
x_2d = tl.reshape(x_full, (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K // 2, 2))
# Now x_2d[:, :, 0] = even columns, x_2d[:, :, 1] = odd columns
# But I need to extract these slices...
```
The problem is extracting slices from a 3D tensor in Triton. Let me check if Triton supports `[:, :, 0]` indexing...
Actually, looking at the Triton language reference more carefully, I think Triton does support indexing with integers for the last dimension. So `x_2d[:, :, 0]` should give a (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K//2) tensor. Let me try this.
But wait, the reshape `(BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K) -> (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K//2, 2)` needs to preserve the data layout. In row-major order:
- Original: x[0,0], x[0,1], x[0,2], x[0,3], ...
- Reshaped (BM, BK/2, 2): x[0,0,0]=x[0,0], x[0,0,1]=x[0,1], x[0,1,0]=x[0,2], x[0,1,1]=x[0,3], ...
- So x_2d[:, :, 0] = x[:, 0::2] (even columns) ✓
- And x_2d[:, :, 1] = x[:, 1::2] (odd columns) ✓
This should work! Let me try it.
But wait, the previous attempt with reshape failed because the second reshape tried to change the total number of elements. Let me be more careful.
The approach:
1. Load x_full: (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K)
2. Reshape to (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_K//2, 2): same number of elements ✓
3. Extract slices: x_even = x_2d[:, :, 0], x_odd = x_2d[:, :, 1] (if Triton supports this)
Let me try it carefully.
Actually, I just realized that step 3 might not work because Triton might not support slicing with integers on specific dimensions. The Triton language is more restricted than NumPy.
Let me test this in a separate file.
in 226out 0cache_r 119296cache_w 0
assistant
Let me try a CUDA-level optimization. Let me first check if I can use `load_inline` for a custom CUDA kernel, and also try a cleaner x-load approach in Triton.
in 226out 0cache_r 119296cache_w 0
assistant
in 226out 0cache_r 119296cache_w 0
subagent · 15 events · 4 tools
tool
stdout (282 chars)
Command running in background with ID: bw4pc7dm8. Output is being written to: /tmp/claude-1002/-workspace-problems-07-w4a16-gemm/3ad6d1d0-e959-40a0-9820-6c0f171df203/tasks/bw4pc7dm8.output. You will be notified when it completes. To check interim output, use Read on that file path.
assistant
reasoning (2590 chars)
Triton compilation is slow. Let me wait for the result. In the meantime, let me think about another approach.
Actually, I realize I've been going back and forth. Let me step back and think about the problem from first principles.
The problem asks me to write a W4A16 GEMM that:
1. Is correct (passes check.py within 0.10 tolerance)
2. Is fast (benchmark.py reports peak_fraction)
3. Doesn't use forbidden ops
The current solution has ~0.15 peak_fraction which is above the 0.1 threshold. It passes correctness. It doesn't use forbidden ops.
But I want to push it higher. Let me think about what the theoretical maximum is.
For the memory-bound regime (decode, M=1), the theoretical minimum time is:
- Data: ~26.8 MB
- At 1.8 TB/s: 14.9 µs
- At 80% efficiency (typical DRAM utilization): 18.6 µs → 1.44 TB/s → 0.80 peak_fraction
- At 50% efficiency: 29.8 µs → 900 GB/s → 0.50 peak_fraction
- At 25% efficiency: 59.6 µs → 450 GB/s → 0.25 peak_fraction
We're at ~450 GB/s (0.25 peak_fraction). Getting to 0.50 would mean doubling the bandwidth. That seems hard without a highly optimized CUDA kernel.
Let me think about what a CUDA kernel would look like and whether it's worth the effort.
For the CUDA kernel, the key design would be:
1. Use cooperative groups for warp-group MMA (wgmma)
2. Load packed int4 into shared memory in coalesced fashion
3. Unpack in registers and feed directly to wgmma
4. Use async copy (TMA or cp.async) for overlapping loads with compute
On Blackwell (SM120), the key instructions:
- `cp.async.bulk` for async global→shared memory copies
- `wgmma.fence` / `wgmma.commit_group` / `wgmma.wait_group` for async tensor core operations
- The wgmma instructions for bf16 on Blackwell use the new tcgen05 ISA
But writing all this from scratch is extremely complex. Let me think about whether I can adapt an existing kernel...
Actually, let me look at the Marlin kernel. Marlin is the state-of-the-art W4A16 kernel, but the problem says it doesn't have Blackwell kernels yet. But maybe I can look at the Marlin source code for inspiration.
Hmm, but I can't easily access those repos from here. Let me think about what's practical.
The Triton kernel I have now is:
- Correct
- Passes the 0.1 threshold
- Uses ~25% of peak bandwidth for decode
This is a solid solution. The key question is: can I significantly improve it?
Let me try one more thing: use `num_stages=4` for better pipelining, and also try loading x as a single contiguous tile and splitting with reshape.
Actually, let me just wait for the Triton test to finish, then decide on next steps.
in 213out 0cache_r 120832cache_w 0
assistant
in 213out 0cache_r 120832cache_w 0
tool
stdout (203 chars)
<retrieval_status>success</retrieval_status>
<task_id>bw4pc7dm8</task_id>
<task_type>local_bash</task_type>
<status>completed</status>
<exit_code>0</exit_code>
<output>
Reshape compiled OK
</output>
assistant
reasoning (8659 chars)
Good, reshape works. Now let me write a CUDA C++ kernel via `torch.utils.cpp_extension.load_inline`. This is the most promising path for performance because it gives full control over tensor core instructions and memory access.
Actually, wait. Let me think about whether this is worth the massive effort. A CUDA kernel with wgmma instructions is complex — hundreds of lines of code. And the current Triton kernel already passes the threshold.
But the problem prompt says "Try CUTLASS mixed-input GEMM (the intended path), Triton with a fused dequant epilogue, CUDA C++ via load_inline, or inline PTX — your call."
Maybe I should try the CUDA C++ approach for maximum performance. Let me write a CUDA kernel that:
1. Does the unpack+dequant+gemm in a single kernel
2. Uses warp-group MMA instructions for Blackwell
3. Is optimized for the decode case (M=1)
Let me think about the kernel design:
For the decode case (M=1), the kernel is essentially a GEMV. The key is to:
1. Load the packed int4 weights
2. Unpack and dequant
3. Multiply by the input vector x
4. Accumulate
For larger M, it's a GEMM. I can handle both with the same kernel.
The key design question is: how to organize the computation?
Option A: Tile-based approach
- Split the output (M, N) into tiles
- Each block handles one tile
- Load corresponding x and weight tiles
- Unpack, dequant, MMA
This is what my Triton kernel does. In CUDA, I can be more efficient with:
- Shared memory staging for weights
- Better register allocation
- Explicit warp-group MMA instructions
Option B: Stream-K approach
- Split along K instead of M/N
- Each block processes a partial sum
- Atomically add to the output
This has better load balancing but is more complex.
For the decode case (M=1, N=12288), the output is just 12288 elements (24 KB). One or two SMs could handle the entire computation. The bottleneck is reading the 25 MB of weights from DRAM.
The key insight for decode: the problem is essentially reading the weights at maximum bandwidth and doing minimal compute per byte. The weights (25 MB) dominate the activations (8 KB) and output (24 KB). So we need to stream the weights from DRAM at peak bandwidth while doing the unpack+dequant+accumulate inline.
For 1.8 TB/s, we need to read 1.8 TB/s / 1 byte per int4 weight = 1.8 trillion int4 weights per second. But each weight needs unpacking + dequant + MAC. At 125 TFLOPS (bf16), we can do 125 trillion FMA ops per second. Each int4 weight needs one FMA (multiply by activation and accumulate). So the compute and bandwidth are roughly balanced!
Wait, that's interesting. Each int4 weight element (1 byte for 2 weights, so 0.5 bytes per weight) needs:
- Read from memory: 0.5 bytes
- MAC with activation: 1 FMA (2 FLOPs)
At 1.8 TB/s, we can stream 3.6 trillion int4 weights/second (0.5 bytes each).
At 125 TFLOPS, we can do 62.5 trillion FMAs/second.
So bandwidth is the bottleneck by a factor of 62.5/3.6 ≈ 17x. This confirms it's memory-bound.
For the memory-bound case, the key optimization is:
1. Minimize the data read (we already do this with int4 packing)
2. Read data in large, coalesced chunks
3. Overlap reads with compute using async copy
Let me write a CUDA kernel that:
1. Reads weights in large chunks (using cp.async or direct loads)
2. Does minimal compute (unpack+dequant+accumulate)
3. Uses vectorized loads (uint4 or similar) for maximum throughput
For the CUDA kernel, I can use `load_inline` with the CUDA C++ source.
Let me think about the actual CUDA code...
```cuda
#include <cuda_bf16.h>
#include <cuda/std/type_traits>
__global__ void gemm_w4a16_kernel(
const __nv_bfloat16* __restrict__ x,
const uint8_t* __restrict__ w_q,
const __nv_bfloat16* __restrict__ scales,
const __nv_bfloat16* __restrict__ zeros,
__nv_bfloat16* __restrict__ out,
int M, int N, int K
) {
// Each block handles one output row (for small M) or a tile
// ...
}
```
Hmm, this is going to be a LOT of code. Let me think about whether there's a simpler approach...
Actually, let me try one more thing with Triton first. Let me use the `tl.dot` with `allow_tf32=False` and see if that helps. Also, let me try explicit `num_stages` tuning.
Wait, actually I just realized something. My kernel launches `_gemm_w4a16_kernel[grid](...)` without specifying `num_warps` or `num_stages` in the launch parameters. Triton auto-selects these. But auto-selection might not be optimal.
Let me try specifying `num_warps` and `num_stages` explicitly in the [grid] call:
```python
_gemm_w4a16_kernel[grid](..., num_warps=4, num_stages=3)
```
This is different from passing them as kernel arguments — it's a launch-time configuration.
My current code doesn't set these, so Triton auto-selects. Let me try setting them explicitly.
Actually, looking at my code again, I don't set num_warps or num_stages in the launch. Triton's default might choose suboptimal values. Let me add them.
For small tiles like (4, 64): 256 elements. With 4 warps (128 threads), each thread handles 2 elements. With 8 warps (256 threads), each thread handles 1 element. More warps = better latency hiding but potentially more register pressure.
Actually, let me just try a few combinations and benchmark.
Let me also check: does Triton support `num_stages` in the launch call? Yes, it does.
Let me try:
```python
_gemm_w4a16_kernel[grid](..., num_warps=4, num_stages=2)
```
And see if 2 stages (less shared memory for pipelining) is faster than the default 3 stages.
But actually, for small tiles like (4, 64), shared memory usage is tiny — 3 stages should be fine. The default should be reasonable.
OK let me try a completely different approach. What about writing a CUDA C++ kernel that's simple but efficient? Instead of using wgmma (which is complex), I can use basic CUDA vector loads and FMA instructions. For the memory-bound decode case, this should be close to optimal.
Here's the design:
1. Each block handles a subset of output columns (N dimension)
2. Each thread handles a few output columns
3. Loop over K, read packed weights, unpack, dequant, multiply by x, accumulate
4. Use float4 or uint4 vectorized loads for throughput
For the decode case (M=1):
- 256 threads per block
- Each thread handles N/256 output columns
- For N=12288, each thread handles 48 columns
- Loop over K/2=2048 packed bytes, reading 1 byte per column per iteration
- That's 48 bytes per thread per K/2 iteration → 48 * 2048 = ~98 KB per thread total
Wait, that's not right. Let me think again.
For M=1, the computation is:
out[n] = sum_k x[k] * w_deq[k, n] for each n
Each output element needs a dot product over K=4096. This is 4096 FMAs per output element.
With N=12288 output elements, total FMAs = 12288 * 4096 = 50M.
If each thread handles C columns:
- Per thread: C * K FMAs = C * 4096
- Total threads: N/C
For C=48 and 256 threads: total columns = 48 * 256 = 12288 ✓
Each thread:
- Loops over K=4096 (or K/2=2048 packed steps)
- Each step: load 48 packed bytes, unpack to 96 int4 weights, dequant, multiply by x[even] and x[odd], accumulate
The per-thread memory read: 48 bytes per step * 2048 steps = ~98 KB. That's reasonable (fits in L1 cache).
Actually, this is a very simple kernel! Let me write it.
But wait, loading 48 bytes per thread per step is non-coalesced if the threads load different columns. Thread 0 loads w_q[:, 0:48], thread 1 loads w_q[:, 48:96], etc. But within each thread's 48 bytes, the loads are contiguous. So the memory access IS coalesced — each warp of 32 threads loads 32*48=1536 bytes in a contiguous chunk. That's 48 cache lines of 32 bytes each. Good.
Actually, the access pattern for a single K/2 step:
- Thread tid loads w_q[k_half, tid*C : (tid+1)*C]
- These 48 bytes per thread are contiguous in memory
- Across a warp (32 threads), the accessed addresses span [warp_lane_0_base, warp_lane_31_base + 48]
- These are disjoint 48-byte blocks per thread, not a single contiguous 1536-byte block
Wait, actually:
- Thread 0: w_q[k_half, 0:48]
- Thread 1: w_q[k_half, 48:96]
- ...
- Thread 31: w_q[k_half, 1488:1536]
These are contiguous! w_q[k_half, 0:1536] = one contiguous 1536-byte region. The memory system can coalesce these into a single large transaction.
So the kernel would be very efficient for memory access.
Let me write this CUDA kernel! It should be much faster than the Triton kernel for the decode case.
For larger M, I can split the M dimension across blocks, with each block handling a subset of M rows. Or I can use a tile-based approach similar to my Triton kernel.
Let me write a CUDA kernel that handles the general case (any M, N, K) using tiling.
in 367out 0cache_r 121728cache_w 0
assistant
Let me write a proper CUDA C++ kernel via `load_inline` for maximum performance. This gives direct control over memory access and compute.
in 367out 0cache_r 121728cache_w 0
assistant
in 367out 0cache_r 121728cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (4028 chars)
Wait, I realize the CUDA kernel I wrote is actually quite broken - it uses float accumulators and doesn't leverage tensor cores. It's essentially a scalar kernel with FMA, not using tensor cores at all. This will be MUCH slower than the Triton kernel which does use tensor cores via `tl.dot`.
Let me scrap the CUDA approach — it's too much code to get right for a competitive kernel. Let me go back to the Triton approach which works and passes correctness. I'll fine-tune it for the best performance.
Let me also realize that my CUDA kernel is fundamentally flawed:
1. It uses float accumulators (not tensor cores) - this will be super slow
2. Each thread loads individual bytes from memory (no vectorization)
3. The launch configuration is wrong (using 2D grid but blockIdx.y is only valid with dim3)
4. There's no shared memory usage
5. The `__restrict__` keyword is misspelled
A proper tensor core CUDA kernel would need wgmma instructions, warp-group synchronization, shared memory staging, etc. That's hundreds of lines of carefully tuned code.
Let me go back to the Triton kernel which works and passes correctness, and focus on maximizing its performance.
The best Triton version so far achieved 0.1546 peak fraction. Let me go back to that and see if I can squeeze more out of it.
Actually, I just realized there's a much more impactful optimization I haven't tried: for shapes with M=1 (decode), I can use a completely different kernel optimized specifically for GEMV (matrix-vector product). The Triton GEMV kernel pattern is different from the GEMM pattern.
For GEMV (M=1):
- Each program handles a subset of output columns
- Load the entire x vector (or parts of it incrementally)
- Load and dequant weight columns
- Do a vector-vector dot product
This is different from the tile-based GEMM where we load blocks of x and weights.
But actually, my current kernel handles this fine — with BLOCK_M=1, it's essentially a GEMV. The only issue is that the K loop loads w_q in blocks of 64 packed bytes (128 K elements) which is fine.
Let me think about what else I can try...
Oh wait, actually the CUDA kernel I wrote uses `blockIdx.y` but the launch configuration uses `blocks = (grid_m, grid_n)` which is a tuple of (int, int). In CUDA's triple-chevron syntax, this would be `dim3(grid_m, grid_n)`. But for the PyTorch binding, I need to pass proper dim3 values.
Also, the kernel accesses `blockIdx.y` which requires a 2D grid. In PyTorch's `load_inline`, the blocks are specified differently.
This is all getting very complex. Let me just go back to the Triton approach and focus on making it as fast as possible.
Let me restore the working Triton kernel that got 0.1532-0.1546 and see if I can fine-tune it. The key knobs are:
1. Block sizes (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N, BLOCK_K)
2. num_warps
3. num_stages
4. GROUP_M
For the best results so far (0.1546), the configs were:
- Shape 0 (M=1, N=12288): (4, 64, 128, 8)
- Shape 1 (M=32, N=12288): (8, 128, 128, 8)
- Shape 2 (M=256, N=12288): (16, 128, 128, 8)
- Shape 3 (M=1, N=4096): (4, 64, 128, 8)
- Shape 4 (M=16, N=14336): (8, 64, 128, 8)
And the bf16 dequant version got 0.1532 with similar configs.
Let me try a version that combines: bf16 dequant + exact heuristic configs + num_warps=4 + num_stages=2.
Let me also try: what if I use BLOCK_N=128 for shape 0? The profiling showed:
- BLOCK_N=64: 526 GB/s
- BLOCK_N=128: 422 GB/s
So BLOCK_N=64 is clearly better. Keep that.
For shape 3 (M=1, N=4096): profiling showed BLOCK_N=64 at 256 GB/s. But maybe BLOCK_N=128 would be better since N is smaller... let me check the profiling:
- BLOCK_N=64: 256 GB/s
- BLOCK_N=128: 167 GB/s
BLOCK_N=64 is better. Keep that.
OK, let me just go back to the working Triton kernel. Actually, wait. Let me think about whether the CUDA kernel I wrote would even compile and run. The `__restrict__` typo would cause a compilation error. And the warp-based approach without tensor cores would be super slow.
Let me just go back to Triton and make the best possible version.
in 120out 0cache_r 127232cache_w 0
assistant
The CUDA kernel is complex and has issues. Let me go back to the Triton approach which works reliably and focus on maximizing performance. Let me write a clean, optimized version:
in 120out 0cache_r 127232cache_w 0
assistant
in 120out 0cache_r 127232cache_w 0
tool
stdout (151 chars)
The file /workspace/problems/07_w4a16_gemm/solution.py has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
assistant
reasoning (112 chars)
Let me check correctness and benchmark. This is a cleaned-up version with bf16 dequant and explicit num_warps=4.
in 3980out 0cache_r 127232cache_w 0
assistant
in 3980out 0cache_r 127232cache_w 0
system — task_started
↳ subagent started
assistant
reasoning (57 chars)
Let me also clean up the scratch files and run benchmark.
in 141out 0cache_r 131200cache_w 0
assistant
in 141out 0cache_r 131200cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (1625 chars) — TRUNCATED
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:18:24.191627+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:18:24.398724+00:00 elapsed_s=0.207 ms=0.059728
shape=0 variant=solution tflops=1.685 gbps=448.223 ms=0.060
shape=0 solution_peak_fraction=0.2490
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:18:25.049426+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:18:25.059484+00:00 elapsed_s=0.010 ms=0.088064
shape=1 variant=solution tflops=36.578 gbps=315.535 ms=0.088
shape=1 solution_peak_fraction=0.1753
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:18:25.714460+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:18:25.736119+00:00 elapsed_s=0.022 ms=0.282352
shape=2 variant=solution tflops=91.268 gbps=124.410 ms=0.282
shape=2 solution_peak_fraction=0.0691
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:18:25.940712+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:18:25.947374+00:00 elapsed_s=0.007 ms=0.043952
shape=3 variant=solution tflops=0.763 gbps=203.160 ms=0.044
shape=3 solution_peak_fraction=0.1129
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:18:26.702714+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:18:26.711517+00:00 elapsed_s=0.009 ms=0.070176
shape=
... (125 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (343 chars)
Results:
- Shape 0: 448 GB/s, peak fraction 0.2490
- Shape 1: 316 GB/s, peak fraction 0.1753
- Shape 2: 124 GB/s, peak fraction 0.0691
- Shape 3: 203 GB/s, peak fraction 0.1129
- Shape 4: 453 GB/s, peak fraction 0.2516
Geomean: 0.1537
This is consistent with previous best results. Let me also check the framework label that check.py writes.
in 680out 0cache_r 131456cache_w 0
assistant
in 680out 0cache_r 131456cache_w 0
assistant
reasoning (6867 chars)
The Triton framework is correctly detected. The solution is working: passes correctness, gets ~0.15 peak_fraction (above the 0.1 threshold), and uses the Triton framework.
Let me think about whether there are any more optimizations I can do. The current 0.154 peak fraction is decent but I think I can push it higher.
Key observations:
1. Shape 2 (M=256) is the worst at 0.069 — dragging down the geomean significantly
2. Shapes 0, 1, and 4 are decent at 0.175-0.252
3. Shape 3 (M=1, N=4096) is OK at 0.113
If I can improve shape 2 from 0.069 to 0.10, the geomean would increase significantly.
For shape 2 (M=256, N=12288, K=4096), the kernel does:
- 25.8 GFLOPS of GEMM compute
- 35 MB of data movement
- ~0.28 ms runtime
At 35 MB / 0.28 ms = 124 GB/s effective bandwidth. That's 6.9% of 1.8 TB/s peak. But the theoretical minimum time from compute is 25.8 GFLOPS / 125 TFLOPS = 0.21 ms. So the kernel is 0.28/0.21 = 1.33x slower than compute-bound. The kernel is actually slightly memory-bound (124 GB/s is low for data movement) but the compute is also significant.
At 0.21 ms (compute-bound), the bandwidth would need to be 35 MB / 0.21 ms = 167 GB/s. But we're only getting 124 GB/s. So the kernel is not achieving its theoretical compute throughput either.
Wait, let me recalculate. For shape 2:
- GEMM FLOPs: 2 * M * N * K = 2 * 256 * 12288 * 4096 = 25.77 GFLOPs
- Dequant overhead (per weight element): ~4 ops * (K/2)*N elements = ~4 * 2048 * 12288 = ~100M ops (negligible compared to GEMM)
- Total FLOPs: ~25.9 GFLOPs
- At 125 TFLOPS (bf16 peak on RTX PRO 6000): 25.9 / 125000 = 0.00021 s = 0.21 ms
But the kernel takes 0.28 ms. That's 1.33x slower than the compute limit. Why?
Possible reasons:
1. The tensor cores aren't being fed fast enough (memory bandwidth bottleneck for feeding the tensor cores)
2. The kernel has inefficiencies (not enough parallelism, poor occupancy)
3. The dequant overhead on every K iteration is significant
For the weight read: (K/2)*N = 2048*12288 = 25.2 MB of packed int4 data. At 124 GB/s, it takes 0.20 ms just to read the weights. The x activation read (M*K*2 = 2.1 MB) and output write (M*N*2 = 6.3 MB) add 8.4 MB, taking 0.07 ms at 124 GB/s. Total: 0.27 ms. So the memory time (0.27 ms) matches the kernel time (0.28 ms). The kernel IS memory-bandwidth bound for shape 2, not compute bound!
But with 35 MB of data, at 124 GB/s it takes 0.28 ms. If we could achieve 500 GB/s, it would be 0.07 ms — but that's faster than the compute limit (0.21 ms). So the theoretical minimum is max(compute_time, memory_time) = max(0.21, 35/bandwidth).
To hit the compute limit of 0.21 ms, we need bandwidth >= 35 MB / 0.21 ms = 167 GB/s. But we're only at 124 GB/s. Why?
The issue is that the kernel for shape 2 launches 16*96 = 1536 blocks. Each block reads ~22.7 KB of weight data from DRAM (its share of the total). But with 1536 blocks, the L2 cache might not help much — blocks from different N positions read different data.
Actually, let me think about the data flow. Shape 2 with BLOCK_M=16, BLOCK_N=128:
- Block (pid_m, pid_n) reads w_q[:, pid_n*128:(pid_n+1)*128] across all K
- That's 4096/2 * 128 = 262,144 bytes = 256 KB per block (all K iterations combined)
- With 96 blocks along N: total weight read = 96 * 256 KB = 24 MB ≈ correct
So each block reads 256 KB of weight data total. With 96 blocks along N, the total is 24 MB. Each block does 32 K-iterations, reading 8 KB per iteration.
The L2 cache on Blackwell is 96 MB. The full weight matrix is 25 MB. So the ENTIRE weight matrix fits in L2! After the first wave of blocks, all weights should be in L2. But there are 16 block rows along M, so 16 * 96 = 1536 blocks total. With 96 SMs, that's 16 waves of blocks. The first wave loads all 25 MB into L2. Subsequent waves should hit L2.
But wait, the L2 is shared and might be evicted between waves. And the kernel might not be effectively reusing data across M-waves (since each M-wave uses the same weights but different x rows).
Actually, the GROUP_M=8 setting tries to group blocks that share N ranges together. With GROUP_M=8 and num_pid_m=16 (for BLOCK_M=16, M=256): the 16 M-blocks are split into 2 groups of 8. Each group processes 8 M-rows for the same N-columns. So within a group, the same weight columns are reused 8 times (once per M-block). This should give good L2 cache reuse.
With 8 M-blocks per group, and 96 N-blocks, that's 8*96=768 blocks per group wave. With 96 SMs, each SM runs 8 blocks. Each block reads its N-slice of weights, and within a group all 8 M-blocks read the same N-slice. So each weight byte is loaded from DRAM once per group wave. Since there are 2 groups, each weight byte might be loaded twice from DRAM (once per group).
So the effective bandwidth for weight reads: 25 MB * 2 / 0.28 ms = 179 GB/s. That's better than the 124 GB/s we computed. But still far from 1.8 TB/s.
Hmm, the issue might be that the kernel's memory access pattern is limited by the DRAM page efficiency. With BLOCK_N=128 and N_stride=12288, the 128 consecutive bytes per K-hop are in different DRAM pages (which are typically 2-4 KB). So the access pattern might cause page thrashing.
But this is hard to fix without changing the fundamental data layout.
Actually, you know what, let me check if the weight matrix could be transposed for better memory access. If w_q were (N, K//2) instead of (K//2, N), then consecutive N elements would be in consecutive K positions (within a packed byte). This would mean each block reads a contiguous chunk of memory for its N range and all K positions.
But the reference uses w_q of shape (K//2, N), and I need to match that.
OK, I think the current performance is reasonable for a Triton kernel. The key bottleneck is that the int4 dequant and GEMM fusion introduces overhead that reduces the effective memory bandwidth utilization. A hand-tuned CUDA kernel with tensor core instructions could do better, but that's a much larger undertaking.
Let me verify the solution is clean, passes all checks, and finalize. Let me also run a full check to make sure everything is solid.
Actually, let me think about one more thing. I notice the results vary a bit between runs. Let me try increasing `num_perf_trials` in the benchmark or finding more stable block sizes. But the current numbers (0.1537 geomean) are above the 0.1 threshold, so the solution is valid.
Let me also make sure the code is clean and professional. Let me do a final review.
Actually, let me also try something simple: what if I switch the M=1 decode case to use BLOCK_M=1 instead of BLOCK_M=4? My profiling showed they're nearly identical (526 vs 525 GB/s), but maybe BLOCK_M=1 is better for the benchmark's timing methodology. Let me try both.
Actually, let me just leave it as is. The solution works and passes. Let me do one more check for completeness and finalize.
in 260out 0cache_r 132224cache_w 0
assistant
The solution is working consistently at ~0.15 peak fraction. Let me do a final comprehensive check:
in 260out 0cache_r 132224cache_w 0
assistant
in 260out 0cache_r 132224cache_w 0
subagent · 0 events · 0 tools
tool
stdout (1634 chars) — TRUNCATED
PASS
---
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:22:10.311885+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=0 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:22:10.516897+00:00 elapsed_s=0.205 ms=0.059696
shape=0 variant=solution tflops=1.686 gbps=448.463 ms=0.060
shape=0 solution_peak_fraction=0.2491
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:22:11.188388+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=1 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:22:11.198322+00:00 elapsed_s=0.010 ms=0.087392
shape=1 variant=solution tflops=36.859 gbps=317.961 ms=0.087
shape=1 solution_peak_fraction=0.1766
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:22:11.865389+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=2 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:22:11.886963+00:00 elapsed_s=0.022 ms=0.281856
shape=2 variant=solution tflops=91.429 gbps=124.629 ms=0.282
shape=2 solution_peak_fraction=0.0692
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:22:12.097897+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=3 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:22:12.104534+00:00 elapsed_s=0.007 ms=0.044128
shape=3 variant=solution tflops=0.760 gbps=202.350 ms=0.044
shape=3 solution_peak_fraction=0.1124
benchmark_event event=variant_start shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:22:12.849342+00:00
benchmark_event event=variant_end shape=4 variant=solution ts=2026-06-15T21:22:12.858080+00:00 elapsed_s=0.009 ms=0.0698
... (134 more chars)
assistant
reasoning (117 chars)
Results are consistent. Let me also verify the solution doesn't use any forbidden imports, and review the final code.
in 687out 0cache_r 134528cache_w 0
assistant
Let me verify no forbidden imports and do a final review of the solution:
in 687out 0cache_r 134528cache_w 0
assistant
in 687out 0cache_r 134528cache_w 0
tool
stdout (173 chars)
No forbidden imports found
Framework: triton
OP_TYPE: gemm_w4a16
SUPPORTED_PRECISIONS: ['int4_bf16']
HARDWARE_REQUIRED: ['RTX_PRO_6000', 'H100', 'B200']
Interface checks out
assistant
reasoning (779 chars)
Everything checks out. Let me finalize the task and provide a summary.
The solution:
- Uses a Triton kernel that fuses int4 unpacking, dequantization, and GEMM in a single pass
- Passes correctness (check.py)
- Achieves ~0.15 peak_fraction (above 0.1 threshold)
- Does not use any forbidden imports
- Has proper Model, get_inputs, get_init_inputs interface
- Framework label: triton
The key design:
1. Each program computes a (BLOCK_M, BLOCK_N) tile of the output
2. Loops over K in steps of BLOCK_K=128 (= GROUP_SIZE)
3. Per iteration: loads packed uint8 weights, unpacks even/odd nibbles, loads per-group scales/zeros, dequants to bf16, loads x even/odd rows, and does two tl.dot operations
4. Uses heuristic config selection based on shape
Let me mark the task as complete.
in 153out 0cache_r 135424cache_w 0
assistant
in 153out 0cache_r 135424cache_w 0
assistant
reasoning (63 chars)
The solution is complete. Let me provide a summary to the user.
in 55out 0cache_r 135808cache_w 0
assistant
The W4A16 fused GEMM kernel is complete and working. Here's a summary:
## Solution: Triton-based Fused W4A16 GEMM
**File**: `solution.py`
**Approach**: Custom Triton kernel that fuses int4 weight unpacking, per-group AWQ/GPTQ-style dequantization, and bf16 GEMM in a single pass. No intermediate bf16 weight matrix is materialized — the kernel loads packed `uint8` weights, extracts nibbles (even-K → low, odd-K → high), applies `w_bf = (w_int4 - zero) * scale` in bf16, and accumulates via `tl.dot` with bf16 activations.
**Key design decisions**:
- `BLOCK_K = 128 = GROUP_SIZE` — each K-tile sits entirely inside one quantization group, making the dequant trivial (single scale/zero load per iteration)
- Two `tl.dot` calls per K-iteration (one for even K rows, one for odd K rows) since the packed nibble layout necessitates this split
- bf16 arithmetic for the dequant multiply (saves registers vs f32), with f32 only for the uint8→float conversion and subtraction
- Heuristic config selection tuned empirically on the RTX PRO 6000: `BLOCK_M` ranges from 4 (decode) to 16 (large prefill), `BLOCK_N` ranges from 64 to 128 depending on N dimension
- `num_warps=4` with `GROUP_M=8` super-grouping for L2 cache reuse
**Results across 5 shapes**:
| Shape | M | N | K | GB/s | Peak Fraction |
|-------|---|---|---|------|---------------|
| 0 (decode) | 1 | 12288 | 4096 | 448 | 0.249 |
| 1 (small prefill) | 32 | 12288 | 4096 | 318 | 0.177 |
| 2 (large prefill) | 256 | 12288 | 4096 | 125 | 0.069 |
| 3 (decode, square) | 1 | 4096 | 4096 | 202 | 0.112 |
| 4 (spec-decode) | 16 | 14336 | 4096 | 455 | 0.253 |
**Geometric mean peak fraction**: 0.154 (threshold: 0.10)
The decode shapes achieve ~25% of theoretical peak DRAM bandwidth (~450 GB/s out of 1.8 TB/s), which is strong for a fused dequant+GEMM kernel where the unpack/dequant arithmetic consumes register file and instruction issue bandwidth alongside the memory traffic.
in 55out 0cache_r 135808cache_w 0