llvm-project/mlir/lib/Analysis/VectorAnalysis.cpp

247 lines
9.5 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

//===- VectorAnalysis.cpp - Analysis for Vectorization --------------------===//
//
// Copyright 2019 The MLIR Authors.
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
//
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.
// =============================================================================
#include "mlir/Analysis/VectorAnalysis.h"
#include "mlir/AffineOps/AffineOps.h"
#include "mlir/Analysis/AffineAnalysis.h"
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
#include "mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.h"
#include "mlir/IR/IntegerSet.h"
#include "mlir/IR/Operation.h"
#include "mlir/StandardOps/Ops.h"
#include "mlir/Support/Functional.h"
#include "mlir/Support/STLExtras.h"
#include "mlir/VectorOps/VectorOps.h"
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
#include "llvm/ADT/DenseSet.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/SetVector.h"
///
/// Implements Analysis functions specific to vectors which support
/// the vectorization and vectorization materialization passes.
///
using namespace mlir;
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
using llvm::SetVector;
Optional<SmallVector<unsigned, 4>>
mlir::shapeRatio(ArrayRef<int64_t> superShape, ArrayRef<int64_t> subShape) {
if (superShape.size() < subShape.size()) {
return Optional<SmallVector<unsigned, 4>>();
}
// Starting from the end, compute the integer divisors.
// Set the boolean `divides` if integral division is not possible.
std::vector<unsigned> result;
result.reserve(superShape.size());
bool divides = true;
auto divide = [&divides, &result](int superSize, int subSize) {
assert(superSize > 0 && "superSize must be > 0");
assert(subSize > 0 && "subSize must be > 0");
divides &= (superSize % subSize == 0);
result.push_back(superSize / subSize);
};
functional::zipApply(
divide, SmallVector<int64_t, 8>{superShape.rbegin(), superShape.rend()},
SmallVector<int64_t, 8>{subShape.rbegin(), subShape.rend()});
// If integral division does not occur, return and let the caller decide.
if (!divides) {
return None;
}
// At this point we computed the ratio (in reverse) for the common
// size. Fill with the remaining entries from the super-vector shape (still in
// reverse).
int commonSize = subShape.size();
std::copy(superShape.rbegin() + commonSize, superShape.rend(),
std::back_inserter(result));
assert(result.size() == superShape.size() &&
"super to sub shape ratio is not of the same size as the super rank");
// Reverse again to get it back in the proper order and return.
return SmallVector<unsigned, 4>{result.rbegin(), result.rend()};
}
Optional<SmallVector<unsigned, 4>> mlir::shapeRatio(VectorType superVectorType,
VectorType subVectorType) {
assert(superVectorType.getElementType() == subVectorType.getElementType() &&
"vector types must be of the same elemental type");
return shapeRatio(superVectorType.getShape(), subVectorType.getShape());
}
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
/// Constructs a permutation map from memref indices to vector dimension.
///
/// The implementation uses the knowledge of the mapping of enclosing loop to
/// vector dimension. `enclosingLoopToVectorDim` carries this information as a
/// map with:
/// - keys representing "vectorized enclosing loops";
/// - values representing the corresponding vector dimension.
/// The algorithm traverses "vectorized enclosing loops" and extracts the
/// at-most-one MemRef index that is invariant along said loop. This index is
/// guaranteed to be at most one by construction: otherwise the MemRef is not
/// vectorizable.
/// If this invariant index is found, it is added to the permutation_map at the
/// proper vector dimension.
/// If no index is found to be invariant, 0 is added to the permutation_map and
/// corresponds to a vector broadcast along that dimension.
///
/// Returns an empty AffineMap if `enclosingLoopToVectorDim` is empty,
/// signalling that no permutation map can be constructed given
/// `enclosingLoopToVectorDim`.
///
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
/// Examples can be found in the documentation of `makePermutationMap`, in the
/// header file.
static AffineMap makePermutationMap(
Operation::operand_range operands,
const DenseMap<Operation *, unsigned> &enclosingLoopToVectorDim) {
if (enclosingLoopToVectorDim.empty())
return AffineMap();
MLIRContext *context =
enclosingLoopToVectorDim.begin()->getFirst()->getContext();
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
using functional::makePtrDynCaster;
using functional::map;
SmallVector<Value *, 8> indices(operands);
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
SmallVector<AffineExpr, 4> perm(enclosingLoopToVectorDim.size(),
getAffineConstantExpr(0, context));
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
for (auto kvp : enclosingLoopToVectorDim) {
assert(kvp.second < perm.size());
auto invariants = getInvariantAccesses(
cast<AffineForOp>(kvp.first).getInductionVar(), indices);
unsigned numIndices = indices.size();
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
unsigned countInvariantIndices = 0;
for (unsigned dim = 0; dim < numIndices; ++dim) {
if (!invariants.count(indices[dim])) {
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
assert(perm[kvp.second] == getAffineConstantExpr(0, context) &&
"permutationMap already has an entry along dim");
perm[kvp.second] = getAffineDimExpr(dim, context);
} else {
++countInvariantIndices;
}
}
assert((countInvariantIndices == numIndices ||
countInvariantIndices == numIndices - 1) &&
"Vectorization prerequisite violated: at most 1 index may be "
"invariant wrt a vectorized loop");
}
return AffineMap::get(indices.size(), 0, perm);
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
}
/// Implementation detail that walks up the parents and records the ones with
/// the specified type.
/// TODO(ntv): could also be implemented as a collect parents followed by a
/// filter and made available outside this file.
template <typename T>
static SetVector<Operation *> getParentsOfType(Operation *op) {
SetVector<Operation *> res;
auto *current = op;
while (auto *parent = current->getParentOp()) {
if (auto typedParent = dyn_cast<T>(parent)) {
assert(res.count(parent) == 0 && "Already inserted");
res.insert(parent);
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
}
current = parent;
[MLIR] Add VectorTransferOps This CL implements and uses VectorTransferOps in lieu of the former custom call op. Tests are updated accordingly. VectorTransferOps come in 2 flavors: VectorTransferReadOp and VectorTransferWriteOp. VectorTransferOps can be thought of as a backend-independent pseudo op/library call that needs to be legalized to MLIR (whiteboxed) before it can be lowered to backend-dependent IR. Note that the current implementation does not yet support a real permutation map. Proper support will come in a followup CL. VectorTransferReadOp ==================== VectorTransferReadOp performs a blocking read from a scalar memref location into a super-vector of the same elemental type. This operation is called 'read' by opposition to 'load' because the super-vector granularity is generally not representable with a single hardware register. As a consequence, memory transfers will generally be required when lowering VectorTransferReadOp. A VectorTransferReadOp is thus a mid-level abstraction that supports super-vectorization with non-effecting padding for full-tile only code. A vector transfer read has semantics similar to a vector load, with additional support for: 1. an optional value of the elemental type of the MemRef. This value supports non-effecting padding and is inserted in places where the vector read exceeds the MemRef bounds. If the value is not specified, the access is statically guaranteed to be within bounds; 2. an attribute of type AffineMap to specify a slice of the original MemRef access and its transposition into the super-vector shape. The permutation_map is an unbounded AffineMap that must represent a permutation from the MemRef dim space projected onto the vector dim space. Example: ```mlir %A = alloc(%size1, %size2, %size3, %size4) : memref<?x?x?x?xf32> ... %val = `ssa-value` : f32 // let %i, %j, %k, %l be ssa-values of type index %v0 = vector_transfer_read %src, %i, %j, %k, %l {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2, d3) -> (d3, d1, d2)} : (memref<?x?x?x?xf32>, index, index, index, index) -> vector<16x32x64xf32> %v1 = vector_transfer_read %src, %i, %j, %k, %l, %val {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2, d3) -> (d3, d1, d2)} : (memref<?x?x?x?xf32>, index, index, index, index, f32) -> vector<16x32x64xf32> ``` VectorTransferWriteOp ===================== VectorTransferWriteOp performs a blocking write from a super-vector to a scalar memref of the same elemental type. This operation is called 'write' by opposition to 'store' because the super-vector granularity is generally not representable with a single hardware register. As a consequence, memory transfers will generally be required when lowering VectorTransferWriteOp. A VectorTransferWriteOp is thus a mid-level abstraction that supports super-vectorization with non-effecting padding for full-tile only code. A vector transfer write has semantics similar to a vector store, with additional support for handling out-of-bounds situations. Example: ```mlir %A = alloc(%size1, %size2, %size3, %size4) : memref<?x?x?x?xf32>. %val = `ssa-value` : vector<16x32x64xf32> // let %i, %j, %k, %l be ssa-values of type index vector_transfer_write %val, %src, %i, %j, %k, %l {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2, d3) -> (d3, d1, d2)} : (vector<16x32x64xf32>, memref<?x?x?x?xf32>, index, index, index, index) ``` PiperOrigin-RevId: 223873234
2018-12-03 15:21:27 -08:00
}
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
return res;
}
/// Returns the enclosing AffineForOp, from closest to farthest.
static SetVector<Operation *> getEnclosingforOps(Operation *op) {
return getParentsOfType<AffineForOp>(op);
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
}
AffineMap mlir::makePermutationMap(
Operation *op, const DenseMap<Operation *, unsigned> &loopToVectorDim) {
DenseMap<Operation *, unsigned> enclosingLoopToVectorDim;
auto enclosingLoops = getEnclosingforOps(op);
for (auto *forInst : enclosingLoops) {
auto it = loopToVectorDim.find(forInst);
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
if (it != loopToVectorDim.end()) {
enclosingLoopToVectorDim.insert(*it);
}
}
if (auto load = dyn_cast<LoadOp>(op)) {
return ::makePermutationMap(load.getIndices(), enclosingLoopToVectorDim);
[MLIR] Add support for permutation_map This CL hooks up and uses permutation_map in vector_transfer ops. In particular, when going into the nuts and bolts of the implementation, it became clear that cases arose that required supporting broadcast semantics. Broadcast semantics are thus added to the general permutation_map. The verify methods and tests are updated accordingly. Examples of interest include. Example 1: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %M { for %i4 = 0 to %N { for %i5 = 0 to %P { %a5 = load %A[%i4, %i5, %i3] : memref<?x?x?xf32> }}} ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} into: ```mlir for %i3 = 0 to %0 step 32 { for %i4 = 0 to %1 { for %i5 = 0 to %2 step 256 { %4 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %i4, %i5, %i3 {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2) -> (d2, d1)} : (memref<?x?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<32x256xf32> }}} ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible for reading the 2-D slice: `%arg0[%i4, %i5:%15+256, %i3:%i3+32]` into vector<32x256xf32>. This will require a transposition when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Example 2: The following MLIR snippet: ```mlir %cst0 = constant 0 : index for %i0 = 0 to %M { %a0 = load %A[%cst0, %cst0] : memref<?x?xf32> } ``` may vectorize with {permutation_map: (d0) -> (0)} into: ```mlir for %i0 = 0 to %0 step 128 { %3 = vector_transfer_read %arg0, %c0_0, %c0_0 {permutation_map: (d0, d1) -> (0)} : (memref<?x?xf32>, index, index) -> vector<128xf32> } ```` Meaning that vector_transfer_read will be responsible of reading the 0-D slice `%arg0[%c0, %c0]` into vector<128xf32>. This will require a 1-D vector broadcast when vector_transfer_read is further lowered. Additionally, some minor cleanups and refactorings are performed. One notable thing missing here is the composition with a projection map during materialization. This is because I could not find an AffineMap composition that operates on AffineMap directly: everything related to composition seems to require going through SSAValue and only operates on AffinMap at a distance via AffineValueMap. I have raised this concern a bunch of times already, the followup CL will actually do something about it. In the meantime, the projection is hacked at a minimum to pass verification and materialiation tests are temporarily incorrect. PiperOrigin-RevId: 224376828
2018-12-06 11:37:25 -08:00
}
auto store = cast<StoreOp>(op);
return ::makePermutationMap(store.getIndices(), enclosingLoopToVectorDim);
[MLIR] Add VectorTransferOps This CL implements and uses VectorTransferOps in lieu of the former custom call op. Tests are updated accordingly. VectorTransferOps come in 2 flavors: VectorTransferReadOp and VectorTransferWriteOp. VectorTransferOps can be thought of as a backend-independent pseudo op/library call that needs to be legalized to MLIR (whiteboxed) before it can be lowered to backend-dependent IR. Note that the current implementation does not yet support a real permutation map. Proper support will come in a followup CL. VectorTransferReadOp ==================== VectorTransferReadOp performs a blocking read from a scalar memref location into a super-vector of the same elemental type. This operation is called 'read' by opposition to 'load' because the super-vector granularity is generally not representable with a single hardware register. As a consequence, memory transfers will generally be required when lowering VectorTransferReadOp. A VectorTransferReadOp is thus a mid-level abstraction that supports super-vectorization with non-effecting padding for full-tile only code. A vector transfer read has semantics similar to a vector load, with additional support for: 1. an optional value of the elemental type of the MemRef. This value supports non-effecting padding and is inserted in places where the vector read exceeds the MemRef bounds. If the value is not specified, the access is statically guaranteed to be within bounds; 2. an attribute of type AffineMap to specify a slice of the original MemRef access and its transposition into the super-vector shape. The permutation_map is an unbounded AffineMap that must represent a permutation from the MemRef dim space projected onto the vector dim space. Example: ```mlir %A = alloc(%size1, %size2, %size3, %size4) : memref<?x?x?x?xf32> ... %val = `ssa-value` : f32 // let %i, %j, %k, %l be ssa-values of type index %v0 = vector_transfer_read %src, %i, %j, %k, %l {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2, d3) -> (d3, d1, d2)} : (memref<?x?x?x?xf32>, index, index, index, index) -> vector<16x32x64xf32> %v1 = vector_transfer_read %src, %i, %j, %k, %l, %val {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2, d3) -> (d3, d1, d2)} : (memref<?x?x?x?xf32>, index, index, index, index, f32) -> vector<16x32x64xf32> ``` VectorTransferWriteOp ===================== VectorTransferWriteOp performs a blocking write from a super-vector to a scalar memref of the same elemental type. This operation is called 'write' by opposition to 'store' because the super-vector granularity is generally not representable with a single hardware register. As a consequence, memory transfers will generally be required when lowering VectorTransferWriteOp. A VectorTransferWriteOp is thus a mid-level abstraction that supports super-vectorization with non-effecting padding for full-tile only code. A vector transfer write has semantics similar to a vector store, with additional support for handling out-of-bounds situations. Example: ```mlir %A = alloc(%size1, %size2, %size3, %size4) : memref<?x?x?x?xf32>. %val = `ssa-value` : vector<16x32x64xf32> // let %i, %j, %k, %l be ssa-values of type index vector_transfer_write %val, %src, %i, %j, %k, %l {permutation_map: (d0, d1, d2, d3) -> (d3, d1, d2)} : (vector<16x32x64xf32>, memref<?x?x?x?xf32>, index, index, index, index) ``` PiperOrigin-RevId: 223873234
2018-12-03 15:21:27 -08:00
}
bool mlir::matcher::operatesOnSuperVectorsOf(Operation &op,
VectorType subVectorType) {
// First, extract the vector type and ditinguish between:
// a. ops that *must* lower a super-vector (i.e. vector.transfer_read,
// vector.transfer_write); and
// b. ops that *may* lower a super-vector (all other ops).
// The ops that *may* lower a super-vector only do so if the super-vector to
// sub-vector ratio exists. The ops that *must* lower a super-vector are
// explicitly checked for this property.
/// TODO(ntv): there should be a single function for all ops to do this so we
/// do not have to special case. Maybe a trait, or just a method, unclear atm.
bool mustDivide = false;
(void)mustDivide;
VectorType superVectorType;
if (auto read = dyn_cast<VectorTransferReadOp>(op)) {
superVectorType = read.getResultType();
mustDivide = true;
} else if (auto write = dyn_cast<VectorTransferWriteOp>(op)) {
superVectorType = write.getVectorType();
mustDivide = true;
} else if (op.getNumResults() == 0) {
if (!isa<ReturnOp>(op)) {
op.emitError("NYI: assuming only return operations can have 0 "
" results at this point");
}
return false;
} else if (op.getNumResults() == 1) {
if (auto v = op.getResult(0)->getType().dyn_cast<VectorType>()) {
superVectorType = v;
} else {
// Not a vector type.
return false;
}
} else {
// Not a vector.transfer and has more than 1 result, fail hard for now to
// wake us up when something changes.
op.emitError("NYI: operation has more than 1 result");
return false;
}
// Get the ratio.
auto ratio = shapeRatio(superVectorType, subVectorType);
// Sanity check.
assert((ratio.hasValue() || !mustDivide) &&
"vector.transfer operation in which super-vector size is not an"
" integer multiple of sub-vector size");
// This catches cases that are not strictly necessary to have multiplicity but
// still aren't divisible by the sub-vector shape.
// This could be useful information if we wanted to reshape at the level of
// the vector type (but we would have to look at the compute and distinguish
// between parallel, reduction and possibly other cases.
if (!ratio.hasValue()) {
return false;
}
return true;
}