[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Upgrading to ROCm 6.1



Hi,

I noticed that Debian is still sitting on 5.7 (with I think a few 6.0), so I would like to try to help out to get it fast forwarded to 6.1.
I've posted to this list in the past, but I figured that I would subscribe.

For anyone unaware, I maintain some Fedora ROCm packages. I'd be happy to help out with a few components for Debian, as I've worked on them closely with Fedora:
- rocm-device-libs
- rocm-comgr
- hipcc
- hsa-runtime
- hsakmt
- rocm smi
- rocminfo

I was going to see if I could open some merge requests on Salsa or send patches, but there was one big change in 6.1 from prior releases that I'm not sure how to approach.

The change is that 6,1 will now work against upstream LLVM 17, but the sources of rocm-device-libs, rocm-comgr, and hipcc are now merged, see the new upstream [1]. The tree contains the whole llvm fork from rocm, but only the amd directory has the bits that debian needs if you guys are using upstream LLVM. As far as I know ROCm 6.2. will move to LLVM 18 when it's released.

Also note I found a bug on 6.1.2 and needed to revert one patch [2] to get it to work with LLVM 17; 6.1.1 and 6.1.0 are unaffected. I reported this to upstream via email, but I can mark a github ticket if you want visibility into it.

To make this change in Fedora, I just repurposed rocm-compilersupport source package to use this new upstream [1[, then dropped hipcc and rocm-device-libs source packages accordingly, since they were now subpackages of rocm-compilersupport. You can check out the Fedora package if you need reference [3].

I'm not very familiar with how Debian tends to work, so I can't really suggest a good path forward, but I'm happy to help out whatever way I can.

Thanks

[1] https://github.com/ROCm/llvm-project/tree/rocm-6.1.x/amd
[2] https://github.com/ROCm/llvm-project/commit/96b2ba31ded4a892390dfba3767c413bd1a3a29d
[3] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocm-compilersupport/blob/rawhide/f/rocm-compilersupport.spec

Reply to: