-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
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
[RFC] Introducing DeclBuffer #70
Changes from all commits
253b01b
43c862c
898c8aa
4c5c92f
e63106c
7f5cf0b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@ | ||
- Feature Name: introducing-decl-buffer | ||
- Author: Wuwei Lin (@vinx13), Eric Lunderberg (@Lunderberg) | ||
- Start Date: 2022-05-04 | ||
- RFC PR: [apache/tvm-rfcs#0000](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/70) | ||
- GitHub Issue: https://github.com/apache/tvm/issues/11627 | ||
|
||
# Summary | ||
[summary]: #summary | ||
|
||
This is a follow-up of https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/9727 and | ||
[RFC#63](https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/63). Currently buffer can be implicitly | ||
declared and then used. The implicit behavior can be error prone and makes analysis more difficult. | ||
This RFC introduces `DeclBuffer`, a new IR construct as an explicit statement for buffer declaration. | ||
|
||
# Motivation | ||
[motivation]: #motivation | ||
|
||
Currently a Buffer object can be created and then referenced in TIR, without explicit declaration | ||
or allocation. For example, in TVM script, one can use `T.buffer_decl` to create a new buffer and | ||
then use it in the rest of the program. | ||
``` | ||
@T.prim_func | ||
def buffer_alias(A: T.Buffer[(16,), "float"]): | ||
A_vector = T.buffer_decl([4], "float32x4", data=A.data) | ||
T.evaluate(A_vector[0]) # read from buffer alias | ||
``` | ||
However, `T.buffer_decl` doesn’t translate to a node in AST. The AST will be | ||
``` | ||
PrimFunc { | ||
buffer_map: {A_data: Buffer(data=A_data, ...)}, | ||
body: Evaluate { | ||
BufferLoad { | ||
buffer: Buffer(data = A.data, [4], "float32x4") # implicit creation of new buffer | ||
index: [0] | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
In this example, `BufferLoad` loads from an implicitly-created new buffer which aliases another | ||
buffer. This example shows that a data variable can be used to create a buffer in arbitrary ways. | ||
There are no guarantee that the created buffer and the underlying data variable have consistent | ||
physical memory. This makes analysis in TIR difficult and error-prone as one should always check | ||
whether a buffer in TIR is an implicitly-created one. | ||
|
||
By introducing explicit `DeclBuffer` statement, we can require that a buffer must always be declared | ||
before any usages. This makes the creation and the usage of buffer better-managed within TIR. | ||
Developers (e.g pass writers) can collect buffer information such as allocation, aliasing by | ||
visiting `DeclBuffer` nodes. | ||
|
||
# Guide-level explanation | ||
[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation | ||
|
||
`DeclBuffer` will be defined as | ||
``` | ||
class DeclBuffer : public Stmt { | ||
Buffer buffer; // the buffer declared | ||
Stmt body; // the scope of the buffer | ||
}; | ||
``` | ||
|
||
In TVM script, `T.buffer_decl` will be renamed to `T.decl_buffer` to make the name a verb phase that | ||
is consistent with the existing ones such as `T.alloc_buffer`, `T.match_buffer`. `T.decl_buffer` | ||
will be translated to a `DeclBuffer` object in TIR. This only changes the way parser handles | ||
`T.decl_buffer`, the user API of `T.decl_buffer` in TVM script will stay the same. | ||
|
||
In TIR, `DeclBuffer` will be handled in `StmtFunctor`. Visitors or mutators of `DeclBuffer` can be | ||
override to handle `DeclBuffer` in TIR passes. | ||
|
||
# Reference-level explanation | ||
[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation | ||
|
||
## Allocation of intermediate buffer | ||
The intermediate buffer inside `PrimFunc` can be declared and allocated in the following way: | ||
|
||
``` | ||
Allocate { | ||
data: A_data{Var(data = ..., )}, | ||
extent: ..., | ||
body: DeclBuffer { | ||
buffer: Buffer(data=A_data, dtype=..., shape=...), | ||
body: { | ||
... | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
This can also be represented in TVMScript: | ||
``` | ||
A_data = T.allocate(shape=..., dtype=...) | ||
A = T.decl_buffer(data=A_data) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
## Declaration of buffer alias | ||
Buffer declared in `DeclBuffer` can reuse data variable from another buffer. This creates a buffer | ||
alias. | ||
|
||
``` | ||
DeclBuffer { | ||
buffer: A(data=Var(name=...), dtype=..., shape=...), | ||
body: { | ||
DeclBuffer { | ||
buffer: A_alias(data=A.data, ...) | ||
body: ... | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
## Replace `preflattened_buffer_map` with buffer alias | ||
|
||
Currently, `PrimFunc` has two maps, `preflattened_buffer_map` and `buffer_map`, to specify the input | ||
buffer shapes. Before the flattening passes (`FlattenBuffer` and `StorageFlatten`), | ||
`preflattened_buffer_map` is empty and `buffer_map` contains the logical shapes of the buffers. | ||
After flattening, the logical shapes are moved to `preflattened_buffer_map`, and `buffer_map` will | ||
store the physical shapes of the buffers. The change of the information stored in `buffer_map` can | ||
be confusing. These two maps can be unified into a single `buffer_map` that defines the logical | ||
shapes of the input buffers. The buffer access in physical shape, which is an internal behavior of | ||
`PrimFunc` after flattening, can be achieved by using `DeclBuffer` to create buffer aliases in | ||
physical shapes. | ||
|
||
This is illustrated in the example below. | ||
|
||
Before flattening: | ||
``` | ||
@T.prim_func | ||
def elemwise(A: T.Buffer[(16, 16), "float32"], C: T.Buffer[(16, 16), "float32"]): | ||
for i, j in T.grid(16, 16): | ||
C[i, j] = A[i, j] | ||
``` | ||
|
||
After flattening: | ||
``` | ||
@T.prim_func | ||
def elemwise(A: T.Buffer[(16, 16), "float32"], C: T.Buffer[(16, 16), "float32"]): | ||
A_flattened = T.decl_buffer(A.data, (256,), "float32") | ||
C_flattened = T.decl_buffer(C.data, (256,), "float32") | ||
for i, j in T.grid(16, 16): | ||
C_flattened[i * 16 + j] = A[i * 16 + j] | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Specifically, the updated flow of buffer flattening using `DeclBuffer` will be: | ||
1. Before `FlattenBuffer/StorageFlatten`: Buffers are declared in the `buffer_map`, and are not flattened. Buffer access is done using N-d unflattened indices. | ||
2. After `FlattenBuffer/StorageFlatten`, but before `MakePackedAPI`: Buffers are declared in the `buffer_map`, and are not flattened. Buffer access is done through a buffer alias explicitly created via `DeclBuffer`, where the alias shares the same data pointer, but has a flattened shape and is accessed with flattened indices. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. for some reason i thought our previous discussion was that Buffer would always contain unflattened shape and there would be a separate function that computes the flattened shape on the fly. did that change? if so why? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It is not changed. The buffer in There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. oh sorry, i see now. the text is very clear i just misread it :) |
||
3. After `MakePackedAPI`: The `buffer_map` is empty. Necessary information such as shapes, strides, of the unflattened buffers, will become `AssertStmt` in the IR, but the unflattened buffers will be no longer accessible. Declarations of flattened buffers are done using the handles extracted using | ||
`tvm_struct_get`. It will use explicit `DeclBuffer` to mark the use of the `T.handle` in the function parameters. These flattened buffers are accessed | ||
with flattened indices. | ||
|
||
## TVM script updates | ||
* `T.allocate` will return data variable instead of a buffer. If the subsequent program need to access | ||
the data variable as a buffer, it should use `T.decl_buffer` to declare the buffer. | ||
* `T.buffer_decl` will be renamed to `T.decl_buffer`. | ||
|
||
## TIR validation | ||
With `DeclBuffer` introduced, we can implement utilities for TIR validation. It will enforce that: | ||
* No implicit buffer declaration. In lowered TIR, buffers must be defined explicitly via `DeclBuffer`. | ||
* No undefined buffer. Buffer in `DeclBuffer` must have been allocated, that is, the data variable | ||
of the buffer must be from the function parameters, `AllocateNode`, alias of other buffers, or from | ||
the return value of other functions (*). | ||
|
||
(*) Note: After `MakePackedAPI`, the backing buffers are the return value of `@tir.tvm_struct_get`. | ||
It could also be an entirely separate function call, such as `data: T.Ptr[T.int32] = T.call_extern("device_specific_malloc", 1024, dtype="handle")`. | ||
## Engineering plan | ||
This RFC introduces a TIR change that may require significant refactor to the existing codebase. | ||
It can be decomposed into three parts to reduce a pull request size. | ||
|
||
- Part 1: Introduce `DeclBuffer` data structure, add corresponding visitors in IR functors. | ||
- Part 2: Refactor existing passes and test cases to use `DeclBuffer`. | ||
- Part 3: Enforce the usage of `DeclBuffer`. No implicit buffer declarations are allowed. | ||
|
||
# Rationale and alternatives | ||
In S-TIR, there is an alternative to define buffer declarations inside the block, similar to the | ||
existing alloc_buffers, match_buffers: | ||
|
||
``` | ||
class Block : public Stmt { | ||
/*! \brief The buffer allocated in the block. */ | ||
Array<Buffer> alloc_buffers; | ||
/*! \brief The match buffer regions. */ | ||
Array<MatchBufferRegion> match_buffers; | ||
/*! \brief The buffer declared in the block. */ | ||
Array<Buffer> decl_buffers; | ||
}; | ||
``` | ||
This unifies the scope of `DeclBuffer` with the block scope. In low-level TIR, a `DeclBuffer` | ||
statement is still needed because Block is not available in low-level TIR. This is similar to the | ||
current status that `block->alloc_buffers` is lowered to Allocate. For now since there are no needs | ||
of `DeclBuffer` during TIR scheduling, we would like to avoid introducing `block->decl_buffers` to | ||
keep it simple. It can be an incremental work upon this when future needs come up. | ||
|
||
Another option would be to separate the concepts of memory allocation and buffer access. | ||
A memory allocation would represent the allocation of some number of bytes, and would always use | ||
physical shape. Each buffer would have a backing allocation, and would represent access into some | ||
tensor, and would use logical/transformed shape. Overall, it would be the difference between having | ||
one "real" buffer and multiple aliases, as opposed to having several buffers, and a memory | ||
allocation backing them, emphasizing that there’s nothing special about the first buffer. We decided | ||
this isn’t necessary, because it would add way more boilerplate for the most common case of one | ||
buffer, and would encourage people to make buffer aliases when not necessary. | ||
|
||
# Drawbacks | ||
The scope of the buffer in `DeclBuffer` is declared as `body` field. It adds level of recursion in | ||
TIR visitors. Since the number of buffers declared inside a `PrimFunc` is usually small, this is | ||
unlikely a concern. | ||
|
||
# Prior art | ||
[prior-art]: #prior-art | ||
|
||
Buffer declaration is implicitly supported prior to this RFC. In TVM script, `T.buffer_decl` is used | ||
to declare a buffer, which can be in other TIR expressions and/or statements. This RFC is intended | ||
to formalize this process by using explicit `DeclBuffer` statement. | ||
|
||
# Unresolved questions | ||
[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions | ||
|
||
Should low-level code generators handle buffer aliases? One option would be to remove them in a | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. is this basically asking whether a codegen should have to track the data variables, or whether we should introduce an explicit TIR node that more readily translates to an index-into-opaque-pointer with type info? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It is asking whether buffer aliasing should be left to codegen (codegen should track the data variable), or buffer aliasing should be unified in an earlier pass. |
||
lowering pass. Another option would be to use them to represent explicit type casts, rather than | ||
having any implicit typecasts. | ||
|
||
When `DeclBuffer` creates a buffer alias, what are the requirements (`shape`, `dtype`, | ||
`elem_offset`, etc.) of the aliasing buffer? The current behavior of the implicit buffer aliasing | ||
is to assume the aliasing buffer is valid, and rely on codegen to handle buffer aliases. | ||
|
||
# Future possibilities | ||
[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities | ||
|
||
With explicit `DeclBuffer` statement in TIR, we can introduce analysis passes for buffer aliasing. | ||
This will help the existing TIR passes to explicitly examine whether their assumption on buffer | ||
aliasing are satisfied. | ||
|
||
After this RFC, in the lowered TIR, we need to use two separate statements, `T.allocate` and `T.decl_buffer` to allocate a buffer data pointer and then declare the buffer. In the future, we can consider providing syntax sugar to allow `T.allocate` to return a buffer. This would require some investigation how we should achieve TVMScript - TIR bidirectional translation. | ||
|
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.
will there be an easy way to do this implemented as part of this RFC? @Lunderberg mentioned something about a utility function to at least compute the flattened buffer_map.
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.
@Lunderberg has a prototype for this apache/tvm#10940, it is based on implicit buffer aliasing. This paragraph is suggesting moving to explicit buffer aliasing using
DeclBuffer
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.
That's correct, the buffer flattening would be done through buffer aliasing. After apache/tvm#10940, the use of N-d/flattened buffers would be as below, depending on where you are in the lowering flow.
BufferFlatten
/FlattenStorage
: Buffers are declared in thebuffer_map
, and are not flattened. Buffer access is done using N-d unflattened indices.BufferFlatten
/FlattenStorage
, but beforeMakePackedAPI
: Buffers are declared in thebuffer_map
, and are not flattened. Buffer access is done through a buffer alias, where the alias shares the same data pointer, but has a flattened shape and is accessed with flattened indices.MakePackedAPI
: Thebuffer_map
is empty. Declarations of flattened buffers are done using the handles extracted usingtvm_struct_get
. These flattened buffers are accessed with flattened indices.As I understand it, this RFC would impact the TIR during parts 2 and 3. Step 2 would have an explicit
DeclBuffer
to mark the aliasing, rather than an implicit aliasing based on re-usedVar Buffer::data
. Step 3 would have an explicitDeclBuffer
to mark the use of theT.handle
in a buffer, rather than being implicit in the first use.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.
thanks for elaborating that! could we add these to the RFC?