Skip to content

Conversation

JinhyunBang
Copy link

@JinhyunBang JinhyunBang commented Nov 25, 2024

  • Removes possible_max_ranks to serve LoRA adapters with an arbitrary rank.
  • When provided with a LoRA adapter with rank larger than the previously set max rank, adaptively increase the matrix sizes rather than throwing an error.

Related Issues: #2847, #3310, #3934

Copy link

👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM project.
Just a reminder: PRs would not trigger full CI run by default. Instead, it would only run fastcheck CI which starts running only a small and essential subset of CI tests to quickly catch errors. You can run other CI tests on top of those by going to your fastcheck build on Buildkite UI (linked in the PR checks section) and unblock them. If you do not have permission to unblock, ping simon-mo or khluu to add you in our Buildkite org.

Once the PR is approved and ready to go, your PR reviewer(s) can run CI to test the changes comprehensively before merging.

To run CI, PR reviewers can do one of these:

  • Add ready label to the PR
  • Enable auto-merge.

🚀

@DarkLight1337
Copy link
Member

DarkLight1337 commented Nov 25, 2024

@mgoin do you know why the LoRA sizes are fixed like that? Is it because we have compiled ops for this?

cc @jeejeelee

@jeejeelee
Copy link
Collaborator

When provided with a LoRA adapter with rank larger than the previously set max rank, adaptively increase the matrix sizes rather than throwing an error.

I'm curious whether the changes are compatible with CUDA graphs. Have you tested this?

@jeejeelee
Copy link
Collaborator

@mgoin do you know why the LoRA sizes are fixed like that? Is it because we have compiled ops for this?

See:#1804. IIUC, I thinks due to fixed LoRA slots.

Copy link
Member

@mgoin mgoin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree it would be nice to support larger ranks if the user needs it, but this should maybe be a set argument. I'm not sure if this will work as-is, so I need to see some testing added

Copy link

mergify bot commented Jan 21, 2025

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

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

@mergify mergify bot added the needs-rebase label Jan 21, 2025
Copy link

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity within 90 days. It will be automatically closed if no further activity occurs within 30 days. Leave a comment if you feel this pull request should remain open. Thank you!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Over 90 days of inactivity label Apr 22, 2025
Copy link

This pull request has been automatically closed due to inactivity. Please feel free to reopen if you intend to continue working on it. Thank you!

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this May 22, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

needs-rebase stale Over 90 days of inactivity

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants