What Irregularity Costs: CUDA C++, Rust, and Triton on a Hash-Blocked GPU Workload

GPU language comparisons are almost always run on tiled dense linear algebra, where every toolchain is good and the differences are small. We implement the same hash-blocked TSDF fusion kernel in CUDA C++, in Rust through NVIDIA's cuda-oxide, and in Triton, and measure it on a workload with the opposite character: an open-addressed hash table with compare-exchange insertion, data-dependent per-lane probe depth, and contended scatter. The result is a split. On the regular stage, which walks a truncation band and accumulates, all three languages land within a small factor of each other. On the irregular stage, which probes and inserts, Rust stays close to hand-written CUDA C++ while Triton is more than an order of magnitude slower. Language choice is nearly free on the work that is usually benchmarked and expensive on the work that is not. We attribute both gaps to specific things the languages cannot express, not to ratios. Triton's cost follows from a probe loop that must run to a compile-time bound and from tl.atomic_cas taking no mask, which forces a scratch structure with no counterpart in CUDA. Rust's cost was invisible in every instruction count: its kernel issues fewer instructions, fewer compare-exchanges and fewer registers at identical occupancy, yet was slower. Hardware counters located it in L1 residency. A GPU-scope atomic load must be coherent across SMs, no NVIDIA L1 is, so the type-correct way to read a shared location bypasses the cache on every access. Triton's bounded probe is also a correctness problem for fusion: at load factors an ordinary depth trajectory reaches, it silently discards blocks and the reconstruction loses patches of surface with nothing reported. We also report a defect found and fixed in cuda-oxide itself, now merged upstream: its scoped atomic load and store could not be called at all in the build mode that produces real kernels.

The FIL Hypothesis: Inductive Biases Help with Kernel Engineering

The Bitter Lesson, which posits that general-purpose methods that scale with computation and data ultimately outperform those with built-in human knowledge, has become a dominant paradigm in the era of Large Language Models. We revisit this principle by observing a new and critical scaling dimension: the duration of the Feedback Information Loop (FIL), the time required for a system to receive a verification signal after generating a prediction. Most historic successes in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have benefited from near instantaneous feedback (e.g., games or classification tasks), but we argue that future AI applications in science and the physical world will inherently involve FILs ranging from hours to weeks. This trend poses a fundamental scaling limit, as obtaining enough verification steps required by purely data-driven methods becomes practically impossible. Additionally, we propose a method that is orthogonal to purely data-driven approaches, based on human-inspired expert knowledge. The method relies on inductive biases and constraining the solution space. We provide an initial validation of the hypothesis and the method, by studying the real-world GPU programming task, a domain with non-trivial FIL, and demonstrate that incorporating inductive biases yields superior performance over data-driven approaches. The code is released under: https://github.com/ai-nikolai/robust_kernelbench