Skip to content

Bump to llvm/llvm-project@b959532 #18384

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

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Aug 29, 2024
Merged

Bump to llvm/llvm-project@b959532 #18384

merged 9 commits into from
Aug 29, 2024

Conversation

MaheshRavishankar
Copy link
Contributor

@MaheshRavishankar MaheshRavishankar commented Aug 28, 2024

Signed-off-by: MaheshRavishankar <mahesh.ravishankar@gmail.com>
@MaheshRavishankar MaheshRavishankar changed the title Bump to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b9595324846a96dd3… Bump to llvm/llvm-project@b959532 Aug 28, 2024
@MaheshRavishankar MaheshRavishankar force-pushed the integrate/20240827 branch 3 times, most recently from 5de013b to b315686 Compare August 28, 2024 19:50
Copy link
Member

@kuhar kuhar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ROCm changes LGTM

Signed-off-by: MaheshRavishankar <mahesh.ravishankar@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: MaheshRavishankar <mahesh.ravishankar@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: MaheshRavishankar <mahesh.ravishankar@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: MaheshRavishankar <mahesh.ravishankar@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: MaheshRavishankar <mahesh.ravishankar@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: MaheshRavishankar <mahesh.ravishankar@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: MaheshRavishankar <mahesh.ravishankar@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: MaheshRavishankar <mahesh.ravishankar@gmail.com>
@MaheshRavishankar
Copy link
Contributor Author

The failure with llvm/llvm-project@1387ba4 can be reproed by this test

module {
  func.func @ext_fp8_dispatch() attributes {translation_info = #iree_codegen.translation_info<LLVMGPUVectorize workgroup_size = [128, 1, 1] subgroup_size = 64>} {
    %c128 = arith.constant 128 : index
    %c0 = arith.constant 0 : index
    %0 = hal.interface.binding.subspan layout(<bindings = [#hal.pipeline.binding<storage_buffer>, #hal.pipeline.binding<storage_buffer>, #hal.pipeline.binding<storage_buffer>]>) binding(0) alignment(64) offset(%c0) flags(ReadOnly) : me\mref<4096xf8E4M3FNUZ, #gpu.address_space<global>>
    memref.assume_alignment %0, 64 : memref<4096xf8E4M3FNUZ, #gpu.address_space<global>>
    %1 = hal.interface.binding.subspan layout(<bindings = [#hal.pipeline.binding<storage_buffer>, #hal.pipeline.binding<storage_buffer>, #hal.pipeline.binding<storage_buffer>]>) binding(1) alignment(64) offset(%c0) flags(ReadOnly) : me\mref<4096xf8E5M2FNUZ, #gpu.address_space<global>>
    memref.assume_alignment %1, 64 : memref<4096xf8E5M2FNUZ, #gpu.address_space<global>>
    %2 = hal.interface.binding.subspan layout(<bindings = [#hal.pipeline.binding<storage_buffer>, #hal.pipeline.binding<storage_buffer>, #hal.pipeline.binding<storage_buffer>]>) binding(2) alignment(64) offset(%c0) : memref<4096xf32, #\gpu.address_space<global>>
    memref.assume_alignment %2, 64 : memref<4096xf32, #gpu.address_space<global>>
    %workgroup_id_x = hal.interface.workgroup.id[0] : index
    %thread_id_x = gpu.thread_id  x
    %3 = arith.muli %workgroup_id_x, %c128 : index
    %4 = arith.addi %thread_id_x, %3 : index
    %5 = memref.load %0[%4] : memref<4096xf8E4M3FNUZ, #gpu.address_space<global>>
    %6 = memref.load %1[%4] : memref<4096xf8E5M2FNUZ, #gpu.address_space<global>>
    %7 = arith.extf %5 : f8E4M3FNUZ to f32
    %8 = arith.extf %6 : f8E5M2FNUZ to f32
    %9 = arith.addf %7, %8 : f32
    memref.store %9, %2[%4] : memref<4096xf32, #gpu.address_space<global>>
    return
  }
}
iree-opt  --iree-gpu-test-target=gfx908 --iree-convert-to-rocdl small_repro.mlir

@krzysz00
Copy link
Contributor

@MaheshRavishankar I'd argue that that test should fail on gfx908 - gfx908 doesn't support fp8 types, which means that those extfs shouldn't lower.

I'm confused by why that ever passed and what the generated LLVM IR looked like

@MaheshRavishankar
Copy link
Contributor Author

There might be some legalization in LLVM for these types on non-supported hardware. Would be good to check.

@marbre marbre merged commit 0d196cd into main Aug 29, 2024
49 checks passed
@marbre marbre deleted the integrate/20240827 branch August 29, 2024 15:04
nithinsubbiah added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 4, 2024
Recent LLVM integrate (#18384)
carried a couple of reverts owing to various failures. This patch drops
one of the reverts
(iree-org/llvm-project@f6935c7)
fixed by updating the function signature in ROCDL pipeline.

---------

Signed-off-by: nithinsubbiah <nithinsubbiah@gmail.com>
IanWood1 pushed a commit to IanWood1/iree that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2024
Recent LLVM integrate (iree-org#18384)
carried a couple of reverts owing to various failures. This patch drops
one of the reverts
(iree-org/llvm-project@f6935c7)
fixed by updating the function signature in ROCDL pipeline.

---------

Signed-off-by: nithinsubbiah <nithinsubbiah@gmail.com>
josemonsalve2 pushed a commit to josemonsalve2/iree that referenced this pull request Sep 14, 2024
josemonsalve2 pushed a commit to josemonsalve2/iree that referenced this pull request Sep 14, 2024
Recent LLVM integrate (iree-org#18384)
carried a couple of reverts owing to various failures. This patch drops
one of the reverts
(iree-org/llvm-project@f6935c7)
fixed by updating the function signature in ROCDL pipeline.

---------

Signed-off-by: nithinsubbiah <nithinsubbiah@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants