You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
[Bug]: Dense Qwen3.8-27B NVFP4 fails to start on Hopper with default settings (no Marlin default for dense Qwen3.5 classes) #20969
Adding nvfp4_gemm_config: {allowed_backends: [marlin]} to cfg.yaml fixes it: the server starts, and GSM8K on the first 100 test questions scores 0.92 (5-shot chat, thinking off, greedy, scored by a small client script).
additional notes
_get_qwen35_moe_model_defaults (tensorrt_llm/_torch/models/modeling_qwen3_5.py:64-83) selects Marlin on SM89-99 for NVFP4 / MIXED_PRECISION checkpoints, but only the MoE classes call it. The dense Qwen3_5ForCausalLM (:703-717) and _Qwen3_5VLModel.get_model_defaults (:747-755, used by Qwen3_5VLModel, which this checkpoint resolves to) return only the Qwen3-Next defaults, so allowed_backends keeps the global default, which has no marlin.
Suggestion: give the dense classes the same linear default, without the MoE backend.
nvidia/Qwen3.8-27B-NVFP4 (MIXED_PRECISION) and Inferact/Qwen3.8-27B-NVFP4 (NVFP4) have the same architecture, so they should get the same defaults; only their config files were checked, they were not run.
Related: #12591 (open) proposes an early error that names marlin; it does not change the default. A separate bug in the Marlin MoE path (SiLU applied to the up projection) is in #20965.
Before submitting a new issue...
Make sure you already searched for relevant issues, and checked the documentation and examples for answers to
frequently asked questions.
I'm interested in contributing a fix for this issue. I'd like to investigate the dense Qwen model defaults and add regression tests to verify that the appropriate NVFP4 backend is selected.
Is this issue available for contribution? If so, would it be possible to assign it to me, or should I proceed with investigating a proposed fix and submit a PR for review?
@navenavelimargam, are you working on this? I have a fix with tests ready that gives the dense Qwen3.5 classes the same Marlin default as the MoE ones. If you haven't started, I'll open it as a PR; if you have, I'll leave it to you.
Activity
navenavelimargam commentedon Oct 25, 2026
Hi @Smallfu666 and TensorRT-LLM maintainers,
I'm interested in contributing a fix for this issue. I'd like to investigate the dense Qwen model defaults and add regression tests to verify that the appropriate NVFP4 backend is selected.
Is this issue available for contribution? If so, would it be possible to assign it to me, or should I proceed with investigating a proposed fix and submit a PR for review?
Thank you!
karljang commentedon Oct 30, 2026
@navenavelimargam,
I’m curious to know if you’re still interested in making a contribution about the issue.
Thank you!
Smallfu666 commentedon Oct 30, 2026
@navenavelimargam, are you working on this? I have a fix with tests ready that gives the dense Qwen3.5 classes the same Marlin default as the MoE ones. If you haven't started, I'll open it as a PR; if you have, I'll leave it to you.