This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

[mlir][linalg] Fix tensor.pad sizes computation in lowerPack.
ClosedPublic

Authored by hanchung on May 16 2023, 2:16 PM.

Details

Summary

The padded sizes should be derived from destination tensor, not source
tensor. There could be more than one incomplete tile in padding domain.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

hanchung created this revision.May 16 2023, 2:16 PM
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptMay 16 2023, 2:16 PM
hanchung requested review of this revision.May 16 2023, 2:16 PM
chelini added inline comments.May 18 2023, 10:55 AM
mlir/lib/Dialect/Linalg/Transforms/Transforms.cpp
541–543

nit: AffineMap::get(/*dimCount*/2, /*symbolCount*/1, d0 * s0 - d1);

mlir/test/Dialect/Linalg/transform-lower-pack.mlir
215

I would just call it: 'pack_with_pad'.

qedawkins added inline comments.May 18 2023, 11:02 AM
mlir/lib/Dialect/Linalg/Transforms/Transforms.cpp
551

Tangentially related, the documentation for the pack op says if the padding value is absent and the tile doesn't perfectly divide then it is UB. Do we need to update the op semantics or does this need to be a failure? (https://mlir.llvm.org/docs/Dialects/TensorOps/#tensorpack-mlirtensorpackop)

hanchung updated this revision to Diff 523539.May 18 2023, 1:36 PM

rebase + address comments

mlir/lib/Dialect/Linalg/Transforms/Transforms.cpp
551

It will raise an error if the padding value is absent and the tile doesn't perfectly divide the dimension. See https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/afe78db7701d15f1d69b3fa50ee05fd42a6297cd/mlir/test/Dialect/Tensor/invalid.mlir#L542-L546

For dynamic cases, it is hard to raise the signal. I think the pattern model the UB to pad with zeros when do the lowering. The padding value is needed for pad ops, even if the pad op is a no op (i.e., all the values in lows and highs are zeros).

I think the pattern can decide how to handle UB itself, so we don't have to update the op semantics. The failures is raised if the op has enough static information. In this context, we don't need to update the doc. What do you think?

qedawkins accepted this revision.May 18 2023, 1:48 PM
qedawkins added inline comments.
mlir/lib/Dialect/Linalg/Transforms/Transforms.cpp
551

Ah I forgot that the verifier will handle the static case, and for the dynamic case UB makes sense.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.May 18 2023, 1:48 PM