Why not [RSC] but [C/64, R, S, 64] in kloop of conv implicit gemm?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 10.5k
- Forks
- 2.1k
- Avg merge
- 3d 11h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 7
Description
suppose R=2, S=2, C=128, ThreadBlockShape=<128,128,64>.
When main loop in implicit GEMM_K, the memory access sequence in cutlass will be r=0,s=0,c=0-63, r=0,s=1,c=0-63, r=1,s=0,c=0-63, r=1,s=1,c=0-63, r=0,s=0,c=63-127, r=0,s=1,c=63-127, r=1,s=0,c=63-127, r=1,s=1,c=63-127.
But why not r=0,s=0,c=0-63, r=0,s=0,c=63-127, r=0,s=1,c=0-63, r=0,s=1,c=63-127 r=1,s=0,c=0-63, r=1,s=0,c=63-127, r=1,s=1,c=0-63, r=1,s=1,c=63-127, Isn't it a better memory access strategy to access C first?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start at the implicit GEMM_K main loop and inspect how ThreadBlockShape<128,128,64> determines the r, s, and c traversal order. Compare the reported [RSC] sequence with the proposed [C/64, R, S, 64] sequence, then use the relevant CUTLASS performance measurements to determine whether the alternative improves memory access; done means a measured conclusion or a clearly scoped change.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- performance
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100