[LinearLayouts] Faster pext algorithm #5621
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We also skip the LinearLayout test for HIP as it's currently failing
ptillet
approved these changes
Jan 15, 2025
lezcano
commented
Jan 15, 2025
Comment on lines
+2796
to
+2797
| if is_hip() and isinstance(src_layout, LinearLayout): | ||
| pytest.skip("FIXME: LinearLayout not supported on HIP") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cc @antiagainst regarding the HIP skip. See also the warpSize / numWarp comment in the OP.
Mogball
approved these changes
Jan 15, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We also skip the LinearLayout test for HIP as it's currently failing.
Regarding the use of
getWarpSizeandgetNumWarpsPerCTA, which are not correct for LinearLayouts with broadcasting as noted in #5617, we found almost all the uses are in AMD land. Changing these into calling the functions that act on the module is tricky, as the module is not currently accessible at the caller site in most of them. As such, we leave this refactor up to AMD folks.