-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
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
Reduce diff with upstream code #2940
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Tiotto, Ettore <ettore.tiotto@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiotto, Ettore <ettore.tiotto@intel.com>
// Dispatch to the corresponding dialect helper function to print the layout. | ||
os << triton::gpu::getLayoutStr(tensorType, UseHWPointOfView); | ||
return success(); | ||
if (dialectName == "ttg") { |
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.
This code is the same as upstream, however it may not work for us. @chengjunlu ?
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.
No, this code wouldn't work for us.
We need to PR the changes to upstream to enable this tool work for third party dialect.
auto shared = dyn_cast_or_null<triton::gpu::SharedEncodingAttr>( | ||
dstType.getEncoding()); | ||
auto shared = | ||
dyn_cast<triton::gpu::SharedEncodingAttr>(dstType.getEncoding()); |
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.
This would make benchmark fail for the advanced path ? @quintinwang5 did you try to upstream this change ?
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.
Submitted something like this. They told me in ttgir every tensor must have a layout
. So I think this is also unreasonable.
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.
We can remove this pass for advance path. Right? Because there is no convert layout operation used in advance path.
No description provided.