[PATCH] D105584: [MLIR][OpenMP] Distribute Construct Operation

[Shraiysh via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

shraiysh added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/lib/Testing/CMakeLists.txt:29
   llvm_gtest
+  clangBasic
+  clangFrontend
----------------
abidmalikwaterloo wrote:
> shraiysh wrote:
> > abidmalikwaterloo wrote:
> > > shraiysh wrote:
> > > > unrelated change?
> > > When I rebase, these changes were highlighted in the main branch which was missing in the patch as it was too old.
> > Hmm, these are in llvm-project/main right now but this means that the patch has not been rebased properly. These changes should not be a part of this patch :/ Can you try rebasing again? Otherwise this will cause issues while/after landing this patch.
> git rebase origin arcpatch-D105584 gives " The current branch is up to date". It means the patch is up to date. Should I remove them manually?
I'm not sure what the issue is, but this change should not be reflected here if the patch is properly rebased with main.


================
Comment at: mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/OpenMP/OpenMPOps.td:514
+    oilist(`schedule` `(`
+              custom<DistributeScheduleClause>(
+               $dist_schedule_var,
----------------
abidmalikwaterloo wrote:
> shraiysh wrote:
> > abidmalikwaterloo wrote:
> > > shraiysh wrote:
> > > > dist_schedule is a dummy clause, where kind is only allowed to be `static` according to the standard. I don't think that requires a custom function, we can instead have something like the following -
> > > > ```
> > > > arguments = UnitAttr:$static_dist_schedule, Optional<IntLikeType>:$schedule_chunk
> > > > 
> > > > assemblyFormat = `dist_schedule` `(` (`static` $static_dist_schedule^)? (`:` $schedule_chunk^)? `)`
> > > > ```
> > > > Would that work? Let me know if there are any suggestions.
> > > My only concern is; will this be a dummy clause with the static scheduler forever? I am pretty sure dist_schedule will have a dynamic or a  user defined scheduling strategy as well to improve the performance of a given application 
> > If and when it changes in the standard, at that time we can change the parsing/printing accordingly. Till then such a function seems unnecessary and a possible source of errors because it accepts invalid OpenMP code.
> Should it be then?  `dist_schedule` `(` (`static` ) (`:` $schedule_chunk^)? `)`
> $static_dist_schedule  seems redundant??? 
AFAIK, the keyword `static` is optional. Without the presence of `$static_dist_schedule`, how are you going to store this flag?


================
Comment at: mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/OpenMP/OpenMPOps.td:528
+
+  let regions = (region AnyRegion:$region);
+}
----------------
abidmalikwaterloo wrote:
> shraiysh wrote:
> > abidmalikwaterloo wrote:
> > > shraiysh wrote:
> > > > I think we need a verifier for this too. There are a couple semantic checks which we can do in verifier.
> > > Can you say more about the semantic checks you have in mind?
> > The following restriction from the standard can be added to the verifier/Operation definition - 
> > > The region corresponding to the distribute construct must be strictly nested inside a teams region.
> > 
> > The other restrictions - I am okay with not adding them because I don't know how they would be added. Needless to say if we figure out how to add them, then we should do it.
> At this stage, we can add:
> 
> LogicalResult DistributeOp::verify(){
>            return success();
> }
> 
> We can add the check later!
Why not add the check now itself. Can it not be implemented? It's a small check :/


================
Comment at: mlir/lib/Dialect/OpenMP/IR/OpenMPDialect.cpp:226
+    	return parser.emitError(parser.getNameLoc()) <<
+    				" expected scheudle kind";
+    
----------------
abidmalikwaterloo wrote:
> shraiysh wrote:
> > nit: schedule spelling.
> I do not think we need this if we treat the schedule as a variable?
Yup. We probably don't need these functions.


================
Comment at: mlir/lib/Dialect/OpenMP/IR/OpenMPDialect.cpp:565
 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
 // WsLoopOp
 //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
----------------
Change this comment to Loop control.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D105584/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D105584