Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
| mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/SparseTensor/Utils/Merger.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 444 ↗ | (On Diff #507478) | As a TODO? |
| 444 ↗ | (On Diff #507478) | Please mark such comments with a TODO, since you clearly have an idea on how to to it better. That way we can periodically grep for TODO's and fix them. Unless you think we will never do that, and then this is a note to self that should not be here. |
| 453 ↗ | (On Diff #510849) | since you added a parameter, you also need to update this comment |
| 458 ↗ | (On Diff #510849) | Top level comments usually apply to the block of code, I find e.g. assert(!loopToDependencies[i][t].has_value()); // must be first definition a lot more readable, since you follow it direclty with the make pair/pushback |
| 470 ↗ | (On Diff #510849) | The non-trivial concept is used more widely now, but it would still be nice to define this per file, or at least per first occurrence what non-trivial really means. Or perhaps we should start using more standard terminology on affine expressions? |
| 503 ↗ | (On Diff #510849) | tensor level with index expression on it, reads awkward how about must be a tensor level that contains a non-trivial index expression |
| mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/LoopEmitter.cpp | ||
| 760 | If the slice | |
| 762 | I find this block of code extremely hard to read. | |
| 897 | A note "make sure" is very ambiguous. Is that a note to self, or something that the code actively does. | |
| 898 | appears first than normal tensors appears before normal tensors? | |
| 1315 | I agree the else is very long and deep Why not if (!resolved) { genSlice continue; } | |
| 1387 | Ok, this block is where all the magic happens ;-) | |
| 1858 | The next | |
| 1936 | Sets (or Increment), but use one style | |
| mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/LoopEmitter.h | ||
| 60 | comments with should or must are a bit dangling unless you say what happens when this assumption is not true | |
| 113 | Why did you change Exits -> exit? Original seems okay | |
| 180–181 | since we have several nested structs, can you give each a short comment (as documentation, and to improve readability( | |
| 196 | Here and below (and above), period at end | |
| 313 | const ref? | |
| mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/Sparsification.cpp | ||
| 1621 | I would start with the same comment as in the else, and state it in the affirmative rather than the speculative // End either a for-loop or a while-loop that iterates over a slice. | |
simplify code.
| mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/LoopEmitter.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 762 | better now? | |
| mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/SparseTensor/Utils/Merger.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 457 ↗ | (On Diff #512264) | can we make this lvl < .... part also a helper method |
| mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/LoopEmitter.cpp | ||
| 105 | This computation does not match my mental interpretation of the text above (L79) | |
| 109 | // offset adds very little, Either use a sentence or remove | |
| 306 | why the empty lines here? | |
| 358 | We need depends - 1 slices to make sure you don't read depends as part of the sentence | |
| 490 | The comment applies to the assert, but the declaration is in between | |
| 573 | Please elaborate. "Pop out" is not at all representative for what follows | |
| 762 | Yes, although it could still use a bit more doc on what each block does (on entry of each block). | |
| 846 | isn't that always the case here? Should that not be part of the method description then? | |
| 1390 | I think this still needs some work to make reading the block easier. The problem is that you have very concise comments in the header So I would still give every implementation function here an entry comment, but one that shows what is generated, using some pseudo-code of the output WDYT? | |
| 1403 | this one seems out of place (all others generate stuff) | |
| 1460 | here and a few other place, no period at end, please make once last pass over all new comments here | |
| mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/LoopEmitter.h | ||
| 60 | I think what is still missing is whether it is enforced (viz. asserts fail when trying to set it) So, something like Clients are responsible for ensuring that the order of the returned (I think my original comment was really on when I see "should" or "must", who is to blame in the end ;-) | |
| 225 | Wren can correct me if I am wrong, but I think this needs to be minimum, right (as in smallest value, and not the lowest according to some other measure)? | |
| 277 | is exceeds -> exceeds but more importantly, I would state this, We break out of the loop when the coordindate exceeds the slideSize. | |
| 309 | the most recent slice (singular) | |
| 317 | perhaps we should discuss somewhere else, but we use "unsigned" at most places, and size_t only for local operations, or inside casts and asserts | |
| 375 | period at end. "to allocate top level local" makes very little sense when read in isolation. Just say what code fragment this points to | |
| 381 | as follows? | |
| mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/Sparsification.cpp | ||
| 87 | I know this was already there, but can we use override here to make it more clear that we implementing the base visitor class? // Visitor method overrides. section? | |
| mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Utils/Merger.cpp | ||
| 418 ↗ | (On Diff #512264) | has the locate property as well |
| mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/SparseTensor/Utils/Merger.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 457 ↗ | (On Diff #512264) | Why do you need this extra assertion? The isValidLevel assertion already ensures that the lvl is valid for the tensor t. Therefore, rather than checking the lvl twice, the rest of the code should instead maintain the invariant that levelToDependentLoop[t].size() == lvlTypes[t].size(). |
| mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/SparseTensor/Utils/Merger.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 478 ↗ | (On Diff #507799) | There is a lot of unnecessary complexity and redundancy in storing all of:
As I mentioned in my earlier comment, we can easily reconstruct the desired (tid, lvl) -> dlt map via [](t, l) { auto i = lvlToLoop[t][l]; return i ? lvlTypes[t][*i] : Undef; }. Therefore, we always have that loopToDependencies[i][t] == make_pair(l, reconstructedLvlTypes[t][l]). Consequently: since the first part of loopToDependencies has that every (t,i) pair determines l, it is trivial to construct the required (t,l) pair for passing to reconstructedLvlTypes; and since it's trivial to define reconstructedLvlTypes, therefore there is no benefit to storing this redundant information. And as I said before, whenever we store redundant information that means we must also therefore take pains to ensure that all the copies of that information remain consistent. I agree that it would be nice to store the (tid, lvl) -> dlt map directly, and to use that in lieu of the current (tid, loopid) -> dlt map. Especially since the former can be quickly constructed from the types of the tensors, and doesn't require knowing anything about lvlToLoop/loopToLvl. However, regardless of which one we store, the point remains the same: there's no benefit to loopToDependencies storing this information redundantly, and if it stores redundant information anyways then it needs to ensure that it remains consistent with the (tid, {lvl,loopid}) -> dlt map. |
address comments.
| mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/SparseTensor/Utils/Merger.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 457 ↗ | (On Diff #512264) | I found this is actually a redundant check, if the lvl is valid then it is definitely inbound. |
| mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/Sparsification.cpp | ||
| 87 | I added a comment, this is non-vritual function, so I did not use override here. | |
| mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/SparseTensor/Utils/Merger.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 478 ↗ | (On Diff #507799) | I agree that we can probably clean it up, but I will address this in separate patches through ;-) |
| mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/LoopEmitter.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1643 | I first though this was commented out code ;-) So make it Generate: code | |
Hi @Peiming, the buildbots are failing (e.g. https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/160/builds/19165) - could you please fix it?
Yeah, I saw it. but the warning seems to be unrelated to this change... I will take a look
@vzakhari this is not the patch that triggers the complaining. If you are going to revert, please make sure you revert the right one, which is https://reviews.llvm.org/D148565
@vzakhari I do not think my patch caused the error, see https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/160/builds/19161, there was already the same warning (but I do not know why it was not treated as errors).
let me explain what I see: I looked at https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/160 and the first failing build was 19162: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/160/builds/19162; it points to D148565. The build issue is shown in stdio section:
FAILED: tools/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/CMakeFiles/obj.MLIRSparseTensorTransforms.dir/SparseGPUCodegen.cpp.o
/usr/local/bin/c++ -DGTEST_HAS_RTTI=0 -DMLIR_CUDA_CONVERSIONS_ENABLED=0 -DMLIR_ROCM_CONVERSIONS_ENABLED=0 -D_DEBUG -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_LIBCPP_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -I/home/tcwg-buildbot/worker/flang-aarch64-latest-gcc/build/tools/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms -I/home/tcwg-buildbot/worker/flang-aarch64-latest-gcc/llvm-project/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms -I/home/tcwg-buildbot/worker/flang-aarch64-latest-gcc/build/include -I/home/tcwg-buildbot/worker/flang-aarch64-latest-gcc/llvm-project/llvm/include -I/home/tcwg-buildbot/worker/flang-aarch64-latest-gcc/llvm-project/mlir/include -I/home/tcwg-buildbot/worker/flang-aarch64-latest-gcc/build/tools/mlir/include -fPIC -fno-semantic-interposition -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -Werror=date-time -Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wno-missing-field-initializers -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wimplicit-fallthrough -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wno-class-memaccess -Wno-redundant-move -Wno-pessimizing-move -Wno-noexcept-type -Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor -Wsuggest-override -Wno-comment -Wno-misleading-indentation -Wctad-maybe-unsupported -fdiagnostics-color -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -O3 -DNDEBUG -fno-exceptions -funwind-tables -fno-rtti -UNDEBUG -std=c++17 -MD -MT tools/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/CMakeFiles/obj.MLIRSparseTensorTransforms.dir/SparseGPUCodegen.cpp.o -MF tools/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/CMakeFiles/obj.MLIRSparseTensorTransforms.dir/SparseGPUCodegen.cpp.o.d -o tools/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/CMakeFiles/obj.MLIRSparseTensorTransforms.dir/SparseGPUCodegen.cpp.o -c /home/tcwg-buildbot/worker/flang-aarch64-latest-gcc/llvm-project/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/SparseGPUCodegen.cpp
In file included from ../llvm-project/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/SparseGPUCodegen.cpp:17:
../llvm-project/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/LoopEmitter.h: In member function ‘constexpr mlir::sparse_tensor::TensorLevel mlir::sparse_tensor::LoopEmitter::makeTensorLevel(mlir::sparse_tensor::TensorId, mlir::sparse_tensor::Level) const’:
../llvm-project/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/LoopEmitter.h:199:29: error: call to non-‘constexpr’ function ‘unsigned int mlir::sparse_tensor::LoopEmitter::getNumTensors() const’
199 | return l * getNumTensors() + t;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~
../llvm-project/mlir/lib/Dialect/SparseTensor/Transforms/LoopEmitter.h:195:12: note: ‘unsigned int mlir::sparse_tensor::LoopEmitter::getNumTensors() const’ declared here
195 | unsigned getNumTensors() const { return tensors.size(); }
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
90.309 [1754/1/4349] Linking CXX shared library lib/libclang-cpp.so.17git
ninja: build stopped: subcommand failed.So it does point to the change from D148565.