srcarroll wrote:
> It would be easy enough for me to change what I have to only do expand and
> only match fail on completely impossible (with `expand_shape`) cases.
After thinking about it more, if I'm not mistaken, the current implementation
already covers all possible cases with `expand_shape`, but with a caveat. I'll
illustrate with this example
```
func.func @pack_dyn_tiles(%arg0: tensor<64x128xf32>, %arg1:
tensor<4x8x?x?xf32>, %tile_0: index, %tile_1: index) -> tensor<4x8x?x?xf32> {
%pack = tensor.pack %arg0 inner_dims_pos = [0, 1] inner_tiles = [%tile_0,
%tile_1] into %arg1
: tensor<64x128xf32> -> tensor<4x8x?x?xf32>
return %pack : tensor<4x8x?x?xf32>
}
```
The current implementation does not handle this case because it unconditionally
match fails when any tile sizes is dynamic. I can make changes on the match
failure condition to allow this case with `expand_shape` and would result in
```
func.func @pack_dyn_tiles(%arg0: tensor<64x128xf32>, %arg1:
tensor<4x8x?x?xf32>, %arg2: index, %arg3: index) -> tensor<4x8x?x?xf32> {
%0 = affine.apply #map()[%arg2]
%1 = affine.apply #map1()[%arg3]
%cst = arith.constant 0.000000e+00 : f32
%padded = tensor.pad %arg0 low[0, 0] high[%0, %1] {
^bb0(%arg4: index, %arg5: index):
tensor.yield %cst : f32
} : tensor<64x128xf32> to tensor<?x?xf32>
%expanded = tensor.expand_shape %padded [[0, 1], [2, 3]] : tensor<?x?xf32>
into tensor<4x?x8x?xf32>
%transposed = linalg.transpose ins(%expanded : tensor<4x?x8x?xf32>)
outs(%arg1 : tensor<4x8x?x?xf32>) permutation = [0, 2, 1, 3]
return %transposed : tensor<4x8x?x?xf32>
}
```
However, in this example the tile sizes can be inferred by the relationship
between input and output sizes, so they might as well be static (I think you
eluded to this in one of your comments).
So I don't think there are any non-trivial cases left to handle dynamic tiles
while keeping `expand_shape`.
Questions:
1. Should the verifier allow such an example? In other words, should users be
required to use static tile sizes in the cases where their static values can be
inferred?
2. If we allow, should there be a canonicalizer implementation to infer the
static tile values?
3. Should I just go ahead and allow dynamic tiles for this case in this
lowering?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76003
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
