-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 631
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[LLVMGPU][ROCm] Add MFMA_F32_16x16x4_F32 instruction #17847
Conversation
ddacba7
to
9412a5e
Compare
8227633
to
a34e030
Compare
73f0863
to
a2ddc34
Compare
a2ddc34
to
49e0bea
Compare
73bcdaa
to
4ca5488
Compare
// not supoorted by amgpu.mfma op. | ||
Value zeroIdx = builder.create<arith::ConstantIndexOp>(loc, 0); | ||
lhs = builder.create<vector::ExtractElementOp>(loc, lhs, zeroIdx); | ||
rhs = builder.create<vector::ExtractElementOp>(loc, rhs, zeroIdx); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Use vector.extract
with an attribute index instead
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated! Any reasons why?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
extract element allows for dynamism over the index and, in this application, requires you to materialize the index attribute as a constant. we don't need either of the two
f9953e0
to
435b878
Compare
8988ba7
to
24f1f84
Compare
lhs = builder.create<vector::ExtractOp>(loc, lhs, SmallVector<int64_t>{0}); | ||
rhs = builder.create<vector::ExtractOp>(loc, rhs, SmallVector<int64_t>{0}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think ArrayRef{int64_t{0}}
will also work
24f1f84
to
da1cd74
Compare
@pashu123 DCO is failing, you need to sign all your commits and force-push |
I think this broke SDXL compilation with Sorry, CI results have been very noisy, particularly this morning. I also filed nod-ai/SHARK-TestSuite#286 for the poor failure mode in that workflow a few days ago (was hoping that would be noticed here during review and resolved, but I should have commented too). |
BTW please add PR descriptions in the future. I'm not sure from the logs and code if this was expected to change lowering paths and affect existing models, for example. |
This reverts commit d65c6d4.
Oooh, compilation succeeded but the |
Reverts #17847 This broke SDXL rocm pipeline tests on mi300, see #17847 (comment). The tests aren't showing error messages (`root:benchmark_sdxl_rocm.py:31 Command failed with error: b''`) so I can't easily tell what the issue is, nod-ai/SHARK-TestSuite#286 is filed to improve the situation there.
Signed-off-by: Lubo Litchev <[email protected]>
…rg#17894) Reverts iree-org#17847 This broke SDXL rocm pipeline tests on mi300, see iree-org#17847 (comment). The tests aren't showing error messages (`root:benchmark_sdxl_rocm.py:31 Command failed with error: b''`) so I can't easily tell what the issue is, nod-ai/SHARK-TestSuite#286 is filed to improve the situation there. Signed-off-by: Lubo Litchev <[email protected]>
No description provided.