The foreach execution only works for operation ranges, typically
stemming from pdl_interp.get_users.
Custom rewrites/constraints can return ranges of types and values as
well, however.
This pr adds support for executing `pdl_interp.foreach` in those cases.
Skipping only over the first results leads to the curCodeIt pointing to
the wrong location in the bytecode, causing the execution to continue
with a wrong instruction after the Constraint/Rewrite.
Signed-off-by: Rickert, Jonas <Jonas.Rickert@amd.com>
The greedy rewriter is used in many different flows and it has a lot of
convenience (work list management, debugging actions, tracing, etc). But
it combines two kinds of greedy behavior 1) how ops are matched, 2)
folding wherever it can.
These are independent forms of greedy and leads to inefficiency. E.g.,
cases where one need to create different phases in lowering and is
required to applying patterns in specific order split across different
passes. Using the driver one ends up needlessly retrying folding/having
multiple rounds of folding attempts, where one final run would have
sufficed.
Of course folks can locally avoid this behavior by just building their
own, but this is also a common requested feature that folks keep on
working around locally in suboptimal ways.
For downstream users, there should be no behavioral change. Updating
from the deprecated should just be a find and replace (e.g., `find ./
-type f -exec sed -i
's|applyPatternsAndFoldGreedily|applyPatternsGreedily|g' {} \;` variety)
as the API arguments hasn't changed between the two.
From https://reviews.llvm.org/D153245
This adds support for native PDL (and PDLL) C++ constraints to return
results.
This is useful for situations where a pattern checks for certain
constraints of multiple interdependent attributes and computes a new
attribute value based on them. Currently, for such an example it is
required to escape to C++ during matching to perform the check and after
a successful match again escape to native C++ to perform the computation
during the rewriting part of the pattern. With this work we can do the
computation in C++ during matching and use the result in the rewriting
part of the pattern. Effectively this enables a choice in the trade-off
of memory consumption during matching vs recomputation of values.
This is an example of a situation where this is useful: We have two
operations with certain attributes that have interdependent constraints.
For instance `attr_foo: one_of [0, 2, 4, 8], attr_bar: one_of [0, 2, 4,
8]` and `attr_foo == attr_bar`. The pattern should only match if all
conditions are true. The new operation should be created with a new
attribute which is computed from the two matched attributes e.g.
`attr_baz = attr_foo * attr_bar`. For the check we already escape to
native C++ and have all values at hand so it makes sense to directly
compute the new attribute value as well:
```
Constraint checkAndCompute(attr0: Attr, attr1: Attr) -> Attr;
Pattern example with benefit(1) {
let foo = op<test.foo>() {attr = attr_foo : Attr};
let bar = op<test.bar>(foo) {attr = attr_bar : Attr};
let attr_baz = checkAndCompute(attr_foo, attr_bar);
rewrite bar with {
let baz = op<test.baz> {attr=attr_baz};
replace bar with baz;
};
}
```
To achieve this the following notable changes were necessary:
PDLL:
- Remove check in PDLL parser that prevented native constraints from
returning results
PDL:
- Change PDL definition of pdl.apply_native_constraint to allow variadic
results
PDL_interp:
- Change PDL_interp definition of pdl_interp.apply_constraint to allow
variadic results
PDLToPDLInterp Pass:
The input to the pass is an arbitrary number of PDL patterns. The pass
collects the predicates that are required to match all of the pdl
patterns and establishes an ordering that allows creation of a single
efficient matcher function to match all of them. Values that are matched
and possibly used in the rewriting part of a pattern are represented as
positions. This allows fusion and thus reusing a single position for
multiple matching patterns. Accordingly, we introduce
ConstraintPosition, which records the type and index of the result of
the constraint. The problem is for the corresponding value to be used in
the rewriting part of a pattern it has to be an input to the
pdl_interp.record_match operation, which is generated early during the
pass such that its surrounding block can be referred to by branching
operations. In consequence the value has to be materialized after the
original pdl.apply_native_constraint has been deleted but before we get
the chance to generate the corresponding pdl_interp.apply_constraint
operation. We solve this by emitting a placeholder value when a
ConstraintPosition is evaluated. These placeholder values (due to fusion
there may be multiple for one constraint result) are replaced later when
the actual pdl_interp.apply_constraint operation is created.
Changes since the phabricator review:
- Addressed all comments
- In particular, removed registerConstraintFunctionWithResults and
instead changed registerConstraintFunction so that contraint functions
always have results (empty by default)
- Thus we don't need to reuse `rewriteFunctions` to store constraint
functions with results anymore, and can instead use
`constraintFunctions`
- Perform a stable sort of ConstraintQuestion, so that
ConstraintQuestion appear before other ConstraintQuestion that use their
results.
- Don't create placeholders for pdl_interp::ApplyConstraintOp. Instead
generate the `pdl_interp::ApplyConstraintOp` before generating the
successor block.
- Fixed a test failure in the pdl python bindings
Original code by @martin-luecke
Co-authored-by: martin-luecke <martinpaul.luecke@amd.com>
This commit refactors the expected form of native constraint and rewrite
functions, and greatly reduces the necessary user complexity required when
defining a native function. Namely, this commit adds in automatic processing
of the necessary PDLValue glue code, and allows for users to define
constraint/rewrite functions using the C++ types that they actually want to
use.
As an example, lets see a simple example rewrite defined today:
```
static void rewriteFn(PatternRewriter &rewriter, PDLResultList &results,
ArrayRef<PDLValue> args) {
ValueRange operandValues = args[0].cast<ValueRange>();
TypeRange typeValues = args[1].cast<TypeRange>();
...
// Create an operation at some point and pass it back to PDL.
Operation *op = rewriter.create<SomeOp>(...);
results.push_back(op);
}
```
After this commit, that same rewrite could be defined as:
```
static Operation *rewriteFn(PatternRewriter &rewriter ValueRange operandValues,
TypeRange typeValues) {
...
// Create an operation at some point and pass it back to PDL.
return rewriter.create<SomeOp>(...);
}
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122086
This commit restructures how TypeID is implemented to ideally avoid
the current problems related to shared libraries. This is done by changing
the "implicit" fallback path to use the name of the type, instead of using
a static template variable (which breaks shared libraries). The major downside to this
is that it adds some additional initialization costs for the implicit path. Given the
use of type names for uniqueness in the fallback, we also no longer allow types
defined in anonymous namespaces to have an implicit TypeID. To simplify defining
an ID for these classes, a new `MLIR_DEFINE_EXPLICIT_INTERNAL_INLINE_TYPE_ID` macro
was added to allow for explicitly defining a TypeID directly on an internal class.
To help identify when types are using the fallback, `-debug-only=typeid` can be
used to log which types are using implicit ids.
This change generally only requires changes to the test passes, which are all defined
in anonymous namespaces, and thus can't use the fallback any longer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122775
This provides a way to create an operation without manipulating
OperationState directly. This is useful for creating unregistered ops.
Reviewed By: rriddle, mehdi_amini
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120787
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
This diff adds an integration test to multi-root PDL matching. It consists of two subtests:
1) A 1-layer perceptron with split forward / backward operations.
2) A 2-layer perceptron with fused forward / backward operations.
These tests use a collection of hand-written patterns and TensorFlow operations to be matched. The first test has a DAG / SSA dominant resulting match; the second does not and is therefore stored in a graph region.
This diff also includes two bug fixes:
1) Mark the pdl_interp dialect as a dependent in the TestPDLByteCodePass. This is needed, because we create ops from that dialect as a part of the PDL-to-PDLInterp lowering.
2) Fix of the starting index in the liveness range for the ForEach operations (bug exposed by the integration test).
Reviewed By: Mogball
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116082
* Constraints/Rewrites registered before a pattern was added were dropped
* Constraints/Rewrites may be registered multiple times (if different pattern sets depend on them)
* ModuleOp no longer has a terminator, so we shouldn't be removing the terminator from it
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114816
SymbolRefAttr is fundamentally a base string plus a sequence
of nested references. Instead of storing the string data as
a copies StringRef, store it as an already-uniqued StringAttr.
This makes a lot of things simpler and more efficient because:
1) references to the symbol are already stored as StringAttr's:
there is no need to copy the string data into MLIRContext
multiple times.
2) This allows pointer comparisons instead of string
comparisons (or redundant uniquing) within SymbolTable.cpp.
3) This allows SymbolTable to hold a DenseMap instead of a
StringMap (which again copies the string data and slows
lookup).
This is a moderately invasive patch, so I kept a lot of
compatibility APIs around. It would be nice to explore changing
getName() to return a StringAttr for example (right now you have
to use getNameAttr()), and eliminate things like the StringRef
version of getSymbol.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108899
This doesn't change APIs, this just cleans up the many in-tree uses of these
names to use the new preferred names. We'll keep the old names around for a
couple weeks to help transitions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99127
Supporting ranges in the byte code requires additional complexity, given that a range can't be easily representable as an opaque void *, as is possible with the existing bytecode value types (Attribute, Type, Value, etc.). To enable representing a range with void *, an auxillary storage is used for the actual range itself, with the pointer being passed around in the normal byte code memory. For type ranges, a TypeRange is stored. For value ranges, a ValueRange is stored. The above problem represents a majority of the complexity involved in this revision, the rest is adapting/adding byte code operations to support the changes made to the PDL interpreter in the parent revision.
After this revision, PDL will have initial end-to-end support for variadic operands/results.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95723
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
PDL patterns are now supported via a new `PDLPatternModule` class. This class contains a ModuleOp with the pdl::PatternOp operations representing the patterns, as well as a collection of registered C++ functions for native constraints/creations/rewrites/etc. that may be invoked via the pdl patterns. Instances of this class are added to an OwningRewritePatternList in the same fashion as C++ RewritePatterns, i.e. via the `insert` method.
The PDL bytecode is an in-memory representation of the PDL interpreter dialect that can be efficiently interpreted/executed. The representation of the bytecode boils down to a code array(for opcodes/memory locations/etc) and a memory buffer(for storing attributes/operations/values/any other data necessary). The bytecode operations are effectively a 1-1 mapping to the PDLInterp dialect operations, with a few exceptions in cases where the in-memory representation of the bytecode can be more efficient than the MLIR representation. For example, a generic `AreEqual` bytecode op can be used to represent AreEqualOp, CheckAttributeOp, and CheckTypeOp.
The execution of the bytecode is split into two phases: matching and rewriting. When matching, all of the matched patterns are collected to avoid the overhead of re-running parts of the matcher. These matched patterns are then considered alongside the native C++ patterns, which rewrite immediately in-place via `RewritePattern::matchAndRewrite`, for the given root operation. When a PDL pattern is matched and has the highest benefit, it is passed back to the bytecode to execute its rewriter.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89107
