Lunderberg commented on PR #80: URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/80#issuecomment-1164421258
> I want to keep the terminology between this RFC and the TIR software pipeline implementation consistent, so if we want to change the meaning of "stage" in this proposal, I want to evaluate the feasibility of such change to the implementation first. Generally, I agree that we should use the common terminology. cc @vinx13 @Lunderberg if they have any thoughts on this topic. On the terminology side, I'm wondering if we want to have separate terminology at the different abstraction levels. At the level of `"software_pipeline_async_stages"` annotations, the "stages" term makes sense to me, but not at the commit/wait abstraction level. At the commit/wait abstraction level, what if we rename it from "stage" to "queue"? If I'm reading correctly, that is the functionality provided by commit/wait, that sequential calls to commit with the same value of `i` define a work queue to be executed sequentially, and that calls with different values of `i` define work that can be performed independently. That the "queue" is produced from the "stage" feels more like an implementation detail of the lowering, rather than something inherent to the commit/wait functionality. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
