Three prevailing themes in the discussion
| # | Theme | Representative quotes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ergonomic promise vs. performance uncertainty | • LegNeato: “The anticipated benefits are similar to the benefits of async/await on CPU: better ergonomics for the developer writing concurrent code, better utilization of shared/limited resources, fewer concurrency bugs.” • GZGavinZhao: “One concern I have is that this async/await approach is not ‘AOT’-enough like the Triton approach… Do you anticipate that there will be measurable performance difference?” |
| 2 | Architecture‑specific constraints (warps, memory, SIMD) | • zozbot234: “I’m not quite seeing the real benefit… requires keeping the async function’s state in GPU‑wide shared memory, which is generally a scarce resource.” • LegNeato: “GPU‑wide memory is not quite as scarce on datacenter cards… local executors with local futures that are !Send can be placed in a faster address space.” • firefly2000: “Is this Nvidia‑only or does it work on other architectures?” • LegNeato: “Currently NVIDIA‑only, we’re cooking up some Vulkan stuff in rust‑gpu though.” |
| 3 | Ecosystem impact and adoption concerns | • the__alchemist: “I am, bluntly, sick of Async taking over rust ecosystems… I see it as the biggest threat to Rust staying a useful tool.” • xiphias2: “Training pipelines are full of data preparation… async‑await is needed for serving inference requests directly on the GPU for example.” |
These three threads capture the main points of debate: the potential developer‑friendly gains versus the lack of proven speedups, the technical hurdles tied to GPU hardware, and the broader worry that async/await could dominate Rust’s GPU ecosystem.