Skip to content

Refine pattern matching rework #783

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 8 commits into from
Apr 29, 2025

Conversation

binarman
Copy link

@binarman binarman commented Apr 28, 2025

This PR:

  • makes Refine pass FuncOp based, instead of ModuleOp
  • replaces walkers with PatternRewriters

@binarman binarman changed the title Refine pattern rework Refine pattern matching rework Apr 28, 2025
@ravil-mobile
Copy link

Hi @binarman. Thanks for the PR.

  1. makes Refine pass FuncOp based, instead of ModuleOp
  2. replaces walkers with PatternRewriters
  3. removes InstructionSchedHint triggering

I like 1) and 2) but I have a concern about 3). It seems to me that we apply refinement to all regions. I would suggest to avoid it at this moment. We can create a dedicated attribute for it.

I ran your compile and ran your branch with the pure GEMM problem and bumped into the compilation crash. I found one necessary fix; I am going to make a PR to your branch.

@alefimov-amd
Copy link

I am going to merge this PR, to unblock the rest of work, feel free to revert it if you think something is wrong.

Seems failed integration test are unrelated and failed because wrong runner is used

@alefimov-amd alefimov-amd merged commit a9b093a into ROCm:refine-ops-pass Apr 29, 2025
3 of 5 checks passed
ravil-mobile added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 23, 2025
This PR:

    makes Refine pass FuncOp based, instead of ModuleOp
    replaces walkers with PatternRewriters

Co-authored-by: ravil-mobile <[email protected]>
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