JosephTheOctonaut commented on PR #80: URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/80#issuecomment-1164667603
@masahi > I want to keep the terminology between this RFC and the TIR software pipeline implementation consistent @Lunderberg >On the terminology side, I'm wondering if we want to have separate terminology at the different abstraction levels I agree with @Lunderberg here, but I'd also like to draw a distinction between the current intended usage of the system and how we might expand upon it later. Specifically, we "intend" that stage `i` in `commit_stage(i)` and `wait_stage(i)` refer to software pipeline stages, but there is no technical requirement or reliance on the integer `i` corresponding to a pipeline stage. Putting in Eric's terms of "queues" (a terminology change I support), a standard usage would have one queue for each async stage, because you need to synchronize around the output of each async group. But we can imagine simple alternative usages that do not have this 1-to-1. E.g., in stage 0 we have 5 DMA units performing 5 parallel loads, which are used in 5 parallel pipelines; here, we'd want 5 queues, but they all correspond to stage 0. > 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 To double check, would this kind of proposed usage affect the implementation at all? I thought you said in our chat that the `i` passed to commit/wait could be arbitrary (though it's perhaps not the intended pattern). -- 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]
