This patch implements a mechanism to read/write use-list orders from/to the mlir bytecode format. When producing bytecode, use-list orders are appended to each value of the IR. When reading bytecode, use-lists orders are loaded in memory and used at the end of parsing to sort the existing use-list chains.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
You need to update the Bytecode documentation still I think.
mlir/include/mlir/Bytecode/BytecodeWriter.h | ||
---|---|---|
37 ↗ | (On Diff #519093) | Please keep the default to true: I'd really want the default to always be the "safe" way. We already got it wrong in other places and it's impossible to fix later. Also what about a fluent API like we do for other config? (OpPrintingFlags for example) |
mlir/include/mlir/IR/AsmState.h | ||
463 ↗ | (On Diff #519093) | I don't quite get why we need this? I would just honor what's in the bytecode without config here. |
mlir/lib/Bytecode/Writer/BytecodeWriter.cpp | ||
783 | How do you manager the order of two uses by the same operation? | |
mlir/lib/IR/Value.cpp | ||
103 | Seems like you could just zip order with the uses here instead of enumerate? | |
107 | Does C++17 allows for (const auto &[use, newUse] : llvm::zip(getUses(), newUseList)) {? |
mlir/include/mlir/Bytecode/BytecodeWriter.h | ||
---|---|---|
37 ↗ | (On Diff #519093) | +1. Let's focus on making the default correct and efficient. |
mlir/include/mlir/IR/AsmState.h | ||
463 ↗ | (On Diff #519093) | Yeah, I don't see an initial need for this functionality. Let's start simple, this can always be added if we really really need it later. |
mlir/include/mlir/IR/Value.h | ||
192 | The formatting here looks off. | |
mlir/lib/Bytecode/Reader/BytecodeReader.cpp | ||
1197–1198 | Can you turn the value of this into a struct? It's not obvious what the bool means. | |
1259 | Please document the struct. | |
1264 | // -> /// for each of these. | |
1724–1727 |
The patch contains the following updates:
- removes the command line arguments to optionally print/read use-lists to bytecode, which are now printed and parsed by default;
- extends the use-lists orders info to block arguments and increases the bytecode version to 2 (this was a breaking change);
- implements a testing pass to do somewhat of a rigorous functional check (essentially, the pass takes any module, applies a random shuffle to the use-list of every value/blockarg, does a roundtrip to bytecode and verifies that the use-list order is preserved).
- Fixes few functionality issues of the initial implementation:
- the use-list was not shuffled correctly, the implementation is now updated and tested rigorously within the testing pass;
- the case with multiple uses in the same operand was not handled correctly - now I introduced a new enumeration that takes into account the operand number of the use;
- I found few corner cases where the op enumeration I was doing was not consistent with what I needed (pre-order walk). Now this is done separately before the recursive enumeration of regions
I experimented a little bit with the testing pass and run it through the whole set of mlir file check tests that exist in the repo, and saw no failures.
I hope you will find this work interesting. Looking forward for further feedback.
mlir/include/mlir/Bytecode/BytecodeWriter.h | ||
---|---|---|
37 ↗ | (On Diff #519093) | Ok, I removed this. We could add this later if needed. |
mlir/include/mlir/IR/AsmState.h | ||
463 ↗ | (On Diff #519093) | Removed. Thanks. |
mlir/include/mlir/IR/Value.h | ||
192 | Should be fixed now. | |
mlir/lib/Bytecode/Reader/BytecodeReader.cpp | ||
1197–1198 | I simplified the implementation a little bit and added a struct with documentation. | |
mlir/lib/Bytecode/Writer/BytecodeWriter.cpp | ||
783 | It was indeed not done correctly - I updated the implementation and now this is done by sorting with keys that contain operand number and operation number. | |
mlir/lib/IR/Value.cpp | ||
107 | Apologies, but this wasn't done correctly - I thought I could be able to change pointee without changing pointers, but the API wasn't really doing that. I added a couple of helpers to shuffle the uselist explicitly. |
LG, with a nit.
mlir/test/lib/IR/TestUseListOrders.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
200 | I'm concerned that we'll have reproducibility issues here. Can we explicitly initialize the engine with a seed that would be a pass option? |
mlir/docs/BytecodeFormat.md | ||
---|---|---|
450 | (newline) |
- Adds random number generator seed as pass input to allow test reproducibility
- Removes the do{}while(is_sorted) from permutation testing - essentially, this allows to verify that sorted uselists remain sorted after a bytecode roundtrip
- Improves comments of few helper functions
mlir/test/lib/IR/TestUseListOrders.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
200 | Agreed, added! |
Thanks for the report, seems like a leak in the test, I'll have a fix shortly (building/testing locally)
f6fb639c76ce may be enough to fix it, this bot seems really slow though: any reason ccache isn't enabled?
It's enabled. but it spends most of the time in "check" steps.
Also splitting it into 3 bots, 1 per sanitizer, could be useful.
There is something fishy, this is the build-time:
real 8m51.140s user 228m58.976s sys 16m24.143s
That seems far too much for just this patch alone: either the ccache cache is too small, or it isn't setup correctly (maybe wiped between builds?).
You can find ccach stat in Info of the bot, hit rate is quite high.
The step is 8 min, usually, it's less, one before is 4. Failed step is "asan check" and it's 30m.
E.g. here ccache was whipped (settings changed) https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/5/builds/33859 and the build is 39m.
Nit: seems like you have spaces at the end of every line here