-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.2k
[mlir][tensor] Add e2e test for tensor.unpack with dynamic tile sizes #121557
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ | ||
| // DEFINE: %{compile} = mlir-opt %s \ | ||
| // DEFINE: -transform-interpreter -test-transform-dialect-erase-schedule |\ | ||
| // DEFINE: mlir-opt \ | ||
| // DEFINE: -test-lower-to-llvm -o %t | ||
| // DEFINE: %{entry_point} = main | ||
| // DEFINE: %{run} = mlir-cpu-runner %t -e %{entry_point} -entry-point-result=void \ | ||
| // DEFINE: -shared-libs=%mlir_runner_utils,%mlir_c_runner_utils | ||
|
|
||
| // RUN: rm -f %t && %{compile} && %{run} | FileCheck %s | ||
|
|
||
| /// End-to-end test for tensor.unpack where one of the inner tile sizes is | ||
| /// dynamic. See pack-dynamic-inner-tile.mlir for a similar test for tensor.pack. | ||
|
|
||
| func.func @main() { | ||
| // Allocate and initialise the inputs | ||
| %A_alloc = tensor.empty() : tensor<7x3xi32> | ||
|
|
||
| %A = arith.constant dense<[ | ||
| [[[1], | ||
| [2], | ||
| [3], | ||
| [4], | ||
| [5], | ||
| [6], | ||
| [7], | ||
| [123]], | ||
| [[8], | ||
| [9], | ||
| [10], | ||
| [11], | ||
| [12], | ||
| [13], | ||
| [14], | ||
| [123]], | ||
| [[15], | ||
| [16], | ||
| [17], | ||
| [18], | ||
| [19], | ||
| [20], | ||
| [21], | ||
| [123]]] | ||
| ]> : tensor<1x3x8x1xi32> | ||
|
|
||
| %A_cast = tensor.cast %A : tensor<1x3x8x1xi32> to tensor<?x3x?x1xi32> | ||
| func.call @unpack(%A_cast) : (tensor<?x3x?x1xi32>) -> () | ||
|
|
||
| return | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func.func private @unpack(%A: tensor<?x3x?x1xi32>) { | ||
| %c1 = arith.constant 1 : index | ||
| %pad_val = arith.constant 123 : i32 | ||
|
|
||
| // Dynamic tile size | ||
| %tile_size = arith.constant 8 : index | ||
|
Comment on lines
+55
to
+56
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't have a solution yet. Just a note that the test could be outdated if we have a canonicalization pattern or folder to fold it into the unpack op. In IREE, we have some dynamic_constant op to prevent the case. We do not have a similar op in MLIR upstream for testing, so I do not have a suggestion here. :(
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, I am a bit concerned about that - thanks for flagging it up! Now, do we need to worry about this though? The test specifies it's own lowering pipeline (through TD) and canonicalization is used fairly late. So perhaps it will be fine? Ultimately, my goal is to provide an e2e test that leverages vectorization. This discussion makes me think that only the "scalable vectorization" variants are truly future-proof: As in, due to "scalability", those tests will just fail if "vectorization" is not used (due to e.g. some other patterns folding things away). The scalability is leveraged here: Note that I am "forcing" the vector length to be 256 bits, which "auto-magically" makes the tile size "grow" from 8 to 16 (i.e. from default 128 bits to 256 bits). This is only possible when vectorization is used. Tl;Dr Even if this particular test becomes obsolete, the "scalable" variant (that I am working towards), should remain relevant. (*) Unwanted from the point of view of this test. Folding constants away is obviously a good thing :)
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think you are right about the scalability part.
I think we do not need to worry about it for now. It is mostly just a note. Some drivers could kick in folders (e.g., OpBuilder::createOrFold) and it becomes an issue when people add folding methods to the op: https://mlir.llvm.org/docs/Canonicalization/#canonicalizing-with-the-fold-method |
||
| %A_unpack_empty = tensor.empty() : tensor<7x3xi32> | ||
|
|
||
| %A_unpack = tensor.unpack %A | ||
| inner_dims_pos = [0, 1] | ||
| inner_tiles = [%tile_size, 1] | ||
| into %A_unpack_empty : tensor<?x3x?x1xi32> -> tensor<7x3xi32> | ||
| %A_cast = tensor.cast %A_unpack : tensor<7x3xi32> to tensor<*xi32> | ||
|
|
||
| // Print the results | ||
| // CHECK: Unranked Memref base@ = 0x{{.*}} rank = 2 offset = 0 sizes = [7, 3] strides = [3, 1] data = | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: [1, 8, 15], | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: [2, 9, 16], | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: [3, 10, 17], | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: [4, 11, 18], | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: [5, 12, 19], | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: [6, 13, 20], | ||
| // CHECK-NEXT: [7, 14, 21] | ||
| call @printMemrefI32(%A_cast) : (tensor<*xi32>) -> () | ||
|
|
||
| return | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| module @transforms attributes { transform.with_named_sequence } { | ||
| transform.named_sequence @__transform_main(%module: !transform.any_op {transform.consume}) { | ||
| %pack = transform.structured.match ops{["tensor.unpack"]} in %module : (!transform.any_op) -> !transform.any_op | ||
|
|
||
| // 1. Tile so that we can decompose tensor.pack | ||
| // Ops (see step 2) | ||
| %c8 = transform.param.constant 8 : i64 -> !transform.param<i64> | ||
| %tiled_pack_op_p, %loops:2 = transform.structured.tile_using_for %pack tile_sizes [%c8, 1] | ||
| : (!transform.any_op, !transform.param<i64>) -> (!transform.any_op, !transform.any_op, !transform.any_op) | ||
|
|
||
| // 2. Decompose the tiled unpack Op into tensor.extract_slice + tensor.insert_slice: | ||
| %func_op = transform.get_parent_op %tiled_pack_op_p {isolated_from_above} : (!transform.any_op) -> !transform.op<"func.func"> | ||
| transform.apply_patterns to %func_op { | ||
| transform.apply_patterns.linalg.decompose_pack_unpack | ||
| transform.apply_patterns.linalg.decompose_pad | ||
| } : !transform.op<"func.func"> | ||
|
|
||
| // 3. Bufferize before lowering to LLVM | ||
| %bufferize = transform.bufferization.one_shot_bufferize %module | ||
| {bufferize_function_boundaries=true} : (!transform.any_op) -> !transform.any_op | ||
|
|
||
| // 4. Canonicalize | ||
| %func_op_bufferized = transform.structured.match ops{["func.func"]} in %bufferize : (!transform.any_op) -> !transform.op<"func.func"> | ||
| transform.apply_patterns to %func_op_bufferized { | ||
| transform.apply_patterns.canonicalization | ||
| } : !transform.op<"func.func"> | ||
|
|
||
| transform.yield | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func.func private @printMemrefI32(%ptr : tensor<*xi32>) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Out of curiosity, why do we have the comment? The test structure looks clean to me, so I think the comment is redundant. If I'm curious about the unpack test, I'd just go to search the file in the same directory.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you don't find it unhelpful then others will quite likely feel the same. Less is more, let me remove it :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SG, thanks!