-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
[AIE] add StickyWAW mutator to postscheduler/postpipeliner #222
base: aie-public
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This is necessary to try sufficient stages, but makes it very difficult to reach the earlier NCopies == 1 crash situation.
43c58b3
to
06961ad
Compare
Hi @martien-de-jong, in the last update of this mutator, we left an orphan command line option:
Is it possible to include this removal in this PR? |
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.
LGTM.
I'd be happy to see QoR numbers, especially for |
@@ -1254,6 +1255,8 @@ void AIEScheduleDAGMI::schedule() { | |||
// If it succeeds, we need to implement it, if we fail we fall back on the | |||
// normal loop schedule | |||
SchedImpl->buildGraph(*this, AA); | |||
postProcessDAG(); |
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.
CHECK : Why do we need the call to "postProcessDAG" ?
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.
Some of the DAG mutations are required for correctness, e.g. giving a correct latency to memory edges
I'd rather not merge this now, running the DAG mutators for pipelining seems to have a nasty side effect on the final loop schedule when pipelining fails. In the post-processing loop of softmax, which essentially does |
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.
Marking as "request changes" to make sure we don't inadvertently merge this before looking into #222 (comment)
Not checked on QoR yet, but I do see a significant improvement in one of the postpipeliner unit tests