Skip to content
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

[UT] enable common loop fusion optimization #3471

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

quintinwang5
Copy link
Contributor

FuseNestedLoopsPass is a common pass independent with backend, so we just enable it in our backend.

@quintinwang5 quintinwang5 linked an issue Feb 20, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@whitneywhtsang
Copy link
Contributor

What is the performance impact? Is there a cost model inside the pass, or is it only enabled by user?

@quintinwang5
Copy link
Contributor Author

What is the performance impact? Is there a cost model inside the pass, or is it only enabled by user?

Now, it's controled by a fronted flag flatten=True. From the original PR, the performance is slightly better.

@whitneywhtsang
Copy link
Contributor

What is the performance impact? Is there a cost model inside the pass, or is it only enabled by user?

Now, it's controled by a fronted flag flatten=True. From the original PR, the performance is slightly better.

icic, can you please measure performance impact of this PR, as this PR also adds two other passes in the pipeline?

@quintinwang5
Copy link
Contributor Author

What is the performance impact? Is there a cost model inside the pass, or is it only enabled by user?

Now, it's controled by a fronted flag flatten=True. From the original PR, the performance is slightly better.

icic, can you please measure performance impact of this PR, as this PR also adds two other passes in the pipeline?

What's the scope of the performance test, just benchmarks?

@whitneywhtsang
Copy link
Contributor

What is the performance impact? Is there a cost model inside the pass, or is it only enabled by user?

Now, it's controled by a fronted flag flatten=True. From the original PR, the performance is slightly better.

icic, can you please measure performance impact of this PR, as this PR also adds two other passes in the pipeline?

What's the scope of the performance test, just benchmarks?

I am only expecting performance of benchmarks, you can use CI to launch it.

@quintinwang5
Copy link
Contributor Author

What is the performance impact? Is there a cost model inside the pass, or is it only enabled by user?

Now, it's controled by a fronted flag flatten=True. From the original PR, the performance is slightly better.

icic, can you please measure performance impact of this PR, as this PR also adds two other passes in the pipeline?

What's the scope of the performance test, just benchmarks?

I am only expecting performance of benchmarks, you can use CI to launch it.

It's hard to draw a simple conclusion. Because we have some cases better but some worse. So I'll try another CI without add_licm

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.

[TEST] Fix test_tl_range_fuse
3 participants