Introduce MLIR transform dialect to BladeDISC
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 933
- Forks
- 169
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
We'll start to explore using MLIR [transform dialect ](https://mlir.llvm.org/docs/Dialects/Transform) to do codegen for (fused) compute-intensive pattern. The initial target is to support gemm codegen on ARM platform to address the dynamic shape problem of Arm Compute Library.
The initial plan is:
- [x] Step 1, enhance the fusion decision pass. We’ll add a new fusion kind `kTransform` for the transform-based fusion pattern.
- [x] Step 2, lower the lmhlo fusion op to linalg on tensor.
- [x] Step 3, transform the linalg computation to loops using transform dialect.
- [x] Step 4, refined the transformed loop to make it suitable for BladeDISC runtime.
- [x] Step 5, add a new pass to the disc pass pipeline to drive the above process.
- [x] Step 6, weight pre-packing support
- [x] add `disc_linalg.multi_level_pack` op, used for doing packing.
- [x] add `transform.disc.cache_read` transform op, relying on `disc_linalg.multi_level_pack` op.
- [x] add folding support for `disc_linalg.multi_level_pack`.
- [x] lower `disc_linalg.multi_level_pack` to loop if it can not be folded.
- [x] fuse const weight op into the `kTransform` fusion pattern, lower it to linalg and then schedule it.
- [x] Step 7, assign a default schedule for each `kTransform` pattern.
- [x] Step 8, schedule selection logic injection
- [x] Step 9, initial model level testing: bert (albert).
- [x] Step 10, support nt, tn, tt format GEMM.
- [ ] Step 11, support batch matmul
- [x] Step 12, support GEMM epilogue fusion.
- [ ] Step 13, performance optimization
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
Research direction
No source files or tests are named. Start by tracing the fusion decision pass and the disc pass pipeline, then review the lmhlo-to-linalg and MLIR transform-dialect stages described in the plan. The remaining scope is batch matmul support and performance optimization, but the issue does not define completion criteria for either.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- compilers, machine-learning
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100