This support has never really worked well, and is incredibly clunky to
use (it effectively creates two argument APIs), and clunky to generate (it isn't
clear how we should actually expose this from PDL frontends). Treating these
as just attribute arguments is much much cleaner in every aspect of the stack.
If we need to optimize lots of constant parameters, it would be better to
investigate internal representation optimizations (e.g. batch attribute creation),
that do not affect the user (we want a clean external API).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121569
In this CL, update the function name of verifier according to the
behavior. If a verifier needs to access the region then it'll be updated
to `verifyRegions`.
Reviewed By: rriddle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120373
PDLDialect being a somewhat user-facing dialect and whose ops contain exclusively other PDL ops in their regions can take advantage of `OpAsmOpInterface` to provide nicer IR.
Reviewed By: rriddle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117828
Unbound OperationOp in the matcher (i.e. one with no uses) is already disallowed by the verifier. However, an OperationOp in the rewriter is not side-effect free -- it's creating an op!
Reviewed By: rriddle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117825
Presently the result type verification checks if the type is used by a `pdl::OperationOp` inside the matcher. This is unnecessarily restrictive; the type could come from a `pdl::OperandOp or `pdl::OperandsOp` and still be inferrable.
Reviewed By: rriddle, Mogball
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116083
Switch the attribute creation operations to use attr-dict-with-
keyword to avoid conflicts (in the case of pdl.attribute) and
confusion(in the case of pdl_interp.create_attribute) with
having a DictionaryAttr as a value and specifying the
attributes of the operation itself (as a dictionary).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114815
The results of a rewrite are optional, but we currently require
them to be present in the assembly format. This commit
makes the results component in the format optional.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114814
This is commit 4 of 4 for the multi-root matching in PDL, discussed in https://llvm.discourse.group/t/rfc-multi-root-pdl-patterns-for-kernel-matching/4148 (topic flagged for review).
This PR integrates the various components (root ordering algorithm, nondeterministic execution of PDL bytecode) to implement multi-root PDL matching. The main idea is for the pattern to specify mulitple candidate roots. The PDL-to-PDLInterp lowering selects one of these roots and "hangs" the pattern from this root, traversing the edges downwards (from operation to its operands) when possible and upwards (from values to its uses) when needed. The root is selected by invoking the optimal matching multiple times, once for each candidate root, and the connectors are determined form the optimal matching. The costs in the directed graph are equal to the number of upward edges that need to be traversed when connecting the given two candidate roots. It can be shown that, for this choice of the cost function, "hanging" the pattern an inner node is no better than from the optimal root.
The following three main additions were implemented as a part of this PR:
1. OperationPos predicate has been extended to allow tracing the operation accepting a value (the opposite of operation defining a value).
2. Predicate checking if two values are not equal - this is useful to ensure that we do not traverse the edge back downwards after we traversed it upwards.
3. Function for for building the cost graph among the candidate roots.
4. Updated buildPredicateList, building the predicates optimal branching has been determined.
Testing: unit tests (an integration test to follow once the stack of commits has landed)
Reviewed By: rriddle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108550
RewriteEndOp was a fake terminator operation that is no longer needed now that blocks are not required to have terminators.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106911
This revision extends the PDL dialect to add support for variadic operands and results, with ranges of these values represented via the recently added !pdl.range type. To support this extension, three new operations have been added that closely match the single variant:
* pdl.operands : Define a range of input operands.
* pdl.results : Extract a result group from an operation.
* pdl.types : Define a handle to a range of types.
Support for these in the pdl interpreter dialect and byte code will be added in followup revisions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95721
This has a numerous amount of benefits, given the overly clunky nature of CreateNativeOp:
* Users can now call into arbitrary rewrite functions from inside of PDL, allowing for more natural interleaving of PDL/C++ and enabling for more of the pattern to be in PDL.
* Removes the need for an additional set of C++ functions/registry/etc. The new ApplyNativeRewriteOp will use the same PDLRewriteFunction as the existing RewriteOp. This reduces the API surface area exposed to users.
This revision also introduces a new PDLResultList class. This class is used to provide results of native rewrite functions back to PDL. We introduce a new class instead of using a SmallVector to simplify the work necessary for variadics, given that ranges will require some changes to the structure of PDLValue.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95720
Up until now, results have been represented as additional results to a pdl.operation. This is fairly clunky, as it mismatches the representation of the rest of the IR constructs(e.g. pdl.operand) and also isn't a viable representation for operations returned by pdl.create_native. This representation also creates much more difficult problems when factoring in support for variadic result groups, optional results, etc. To resolve some of these problems, and simplify adding support for variable length results, this revision extracts the representation for results out of pdl.operation in the form of a new `pdl.result` operation. This operation returns the result of an operation at a given index, e.g.:
```
%root = pdl.operation ...
%result = pdl.result 0 of %root
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95719
This allows the caller to distinguish between a parse error or an
unmatched keyword. It fixes the redundant error that was emitted by the
caller when the generated parser would fail.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98162
This better matches the actual IR concept that is being modeled, and is consistent with how the rest of PDL is structured.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95718
This type represents a range of positional values. It will be used in followup revisions to add support for variadic constructs to PDL, such as operand and result ranges.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95717
The PDL Interpreter dialect provides a lower level abstraction compared to the PDL dialect, and is targeted towards low level optimization and interpreter code generation. The dialect operations encapsulates low-level pattern match and rewrite "primitives", such as navigating the IR (Operation::getOperand), creating new operations (OpBuilder::create), etc. Many of the operations within this dialect also fuse branching control flow with some form of a predicate comparison operation. This type of fusion reduces the amount of work that an interpreter must do when executing.
An example of this representation is shown below:
```mlir
// The following high level PDL pattern:
pdl.pattern : benefit(1) {
%resultType = pdl.type
%inputOperand = pdl.input
%root, %results = pdl.operation "foo.op"(%inputOperand) -> %resultType
pdl.rewrite %root {
pdl.replace %root with (%inputOperand)
}
}
// May be represented in the interpreter dialect as follows:
module {
func @matcher(%arg0: !pdl.operation) {
pdl_interp.check_operation_name of %arg0 is "foo.op" -> ^bb2, ^bb1
^bb1:
pdl_interp.return
^bb2:
pdl_interp.check_operand_count of %arg0 is 1 -> ^bb3, ^bb1
^bb3:
pdl_interp.check_result_count of %arg0 is 1 -> ^bb4, ^bb1
^bb4:
%0 = pdl_interp.get_operand 0 of %arg0
pdl_interp.is_not_null %0 : !pdl.value -> ^bb5, ^bb1
^bb5:
%1 = pdl_interp.get_result 0 of %arg0
pdl_interp.is_not_null %1 : !pdl.value -> ^bb6, ^bb1
^bb6:
pdl_interp.record_match @rewriters::@rewriter(%0, %arg0 : !pdl.value, !pdl.operation) : benefit(1), loc([%arg0]), root("foo.op") -> ^bb1
}
module @rewriters {
func @rewriter(%arg0: !pdl.value, %arg1: !pdl.operation) {
pdl_interp.replace %arg1 with(%arg0)
pdl_interp.return
}
}
}
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84579
PDL presents a high level abstraction for the rewrite pattern infrastructure available in MLIR. This abstraction allows for representing patterns transforming MLIR, as MLIR. This allows for applying all of the benefits that the general MLIR infrastructure provides, to the infrastructure itself. This means that pattern matching can be more easily verified for correctness, targeted by frontends, and optimized.
PDL abstracts over various different aspects of patterns and core MLIR data structures. Patterns are specified via a `pdl.pattern` operation. These operations contain a region body for the "matcher" code, and terminate with a `pdl.rewrite` that either dispatches to an external rewriter or contains a region for the rewrite specified via `pdl`. The types of values in `pdl` are handle types to MLIR C++ types, with `!pdl.attribute`, `!pdl.operation`, and `!pdl.type` directly mapping to `mlir::Attribute`, `mlir::Operation*`, and `mlir::Value` respectively.
An example pattern is shown below:
```mlir
// pdl.pattern contains metadata similarly to a `RewritePattern`.
pdl.pattern : benefit(1) {
// External input operand values are specified via `pdl.input` operations.
// Result types are constrainted via `pdl.type` operations.
%resultType = pdl.type
%inputOperand = pdl.input
%root, %results = pdl.operation "foo.op"(%inputOperand) -> %resultType
pdl.rewrite(%root) {
pdl.replace %root with (%inputOperand)
}
}
```
This is a culmination of the work originally discussed here: https://groups.google.com/a/tensorflow.org/g/mlir/c/j_bn74ByxlQ
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84578
