| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
This includes the rename from `mlirOpRewritePattenCreate` to `mlirOpRewritePatternCreate` in CAPI, and other typo fixes in docs and code comments.
|
|
patterns (#163080)
This is a follow-up PR for #162699.
Currently, in the function where we define rewrite patterns, the `op` we
receive is of type `ir.Operation` rather than a specific `OpView` type
(such as `arith.AddIOp`). This means we can’t conveniently access
certain parts of the operation — for example, we need to use
`op.operands[0]` instead of `op.lhs`. The following example code
illustrates this situation.
```python
def to_muli(op, rewriter):
# op is typed ir.Operation instead of arith.AddIOp
pass
patterns.add(arith.AddIOp, to_muli)
```
In this PR, we convert the operation to its corresponding `OpView`
subclass before invoking the rewrite pattern callback, making it much
easier to write patterns.
---------
Co-authored-by: Maksim Levental <maksim.levental@gmail.com>
|
|
This is a follow-up PR of #162699.
In this PR we clean CAPI and Python bindings of MLIR rewrite part by:
- remove all manually-defined `wrap`/`unwrap` functions;
- remove useless nanobind-defined Python class `RewritePattern`.
|
|
This PR adds support for defining custom **`RewritePattern`**
implementations directly in the Python bindings.
Previously, users could define similar patterns using the PDL dialect’s
bindings. However, for more complex patterns, this often required
writing multiple Python callbacks as PDL native constraints or rewrite
functions, which made the overall logic less intuitive—though it could
be more performant than a pure Python implementation (especially for
simple patterns).
With this change, we introduce an additional, straightforward way to
define patterns purely in Python, complementing the existing PDL-based
approach.
### Example
```python
def to_muli(op, rewriter):
with rewriter.ip:
new_op = arith.muli(op.operands[0], op.operands[1], loc=op.location)
rewriter.replace_op(op, new_op.owner)
with Context():
patterns = RewritePatternSet()
patterns.add(arith.AddIOp, to_muli) # a pattern that rewrites arith.addi to arith.muli
frozen = patterns.freeze()
module = ...
apply_patterns_and_fold_greedily(module, frozen)
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Maksim Levental <maksim.levental@gmail.com>
|
|
In [#160520](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160520), we
discussed the current limitations of PDL rewriting in Python (see [this
comment](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160520#issuecomment-3332326184)).
At the moment, we cannot create new operations in PDL native (python)
rewrite functions because the `PatternRewriter` APIs are not exposed.
This PR introduces bindings to retrieve the insertion point of the
`PatternRewriter`, enabling users to create new operations within Python
rewrite functions. With this capability, more complex rewrites e.g. with
branching and loops that involve op creations become possible.
---------
Co-authored-by: Maksim Levental <maksim.levental@gmail.com>
|
|
Rewrite.cpp (NFC)
|
|
Adds argument names to the method stubs for PDLResultList (from
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159926).
|
|
This is a follow-up to #159926.
That PR (#159926) exposed native rewrite function registration in PDL
through the C API and Python, enabling use with
`pdl.apply_native_rewrite`.
In this PR, we add support for native constraint functions in PDL via
`pdl.apply_native_constraint`, further completing the PDL API.
|
|
(#159926)
In the MLIR Python bindings, we can currently use PDL to define simple
patterns and then execute them with the greedy rewrite driver. However,
when dealing with more complex patterns—such as constant folding for
integer addition—we find that we need `apply_native_rewrite` to actually
perform arithmetic (i.e., compute the sum of two constants). For
example, consider the following PDL pseudocode:
```mlir
pdl.pattern : benefit(1) {
%a0 = pdl.attribute
%a1 = pdl.attribute
%c0 = pdl.operation "arith.constant" {value = %a0}
%c1 = pdl.operation "arith.constant" {value = %a1}
%op = pdl.operation "arith.addi"(%c0, %c1)
%sum = pdl.apply_native_rewrite "addIntegers"(%a0, %a1)
%new_cst = pdl.operation "arith.constant" {value = %sum}
pdl.replace %op with %new_cst
}
```
Here, `addIntegers` cannot be expressed in PDL alone—it requires a
*native rewrite function*. This PR introduces a mechanism to support
exactly that, allowing complex rewrite patterns to be expressed in
Python and enabling many passes to be implemented directly in Python as
well.
As a test case, we defined two new operations (`myint.constant` and
`myint.add`) in Python and implemented a constant-folding rewrite
pattern for them. The core code looks like this:
```python
m = Module.create()
with InsertionPoint(m.body):
@pdl.pattern(benefit=1, sym_name="myint_add_fold")
def pat():
...
op0 = pdl.OperationOp(name="myint.add", args=[v0, v1], types=[t])
@pdl.rewrite()
def rew():
sum = pdl.apply_native_rewrite(
[pdl.AttributeType.get()], "add_fold", [a0, a1]
)
newOp = pdl.OperationOp(
name="myint.constant", attributes={"value": sum}, types=[t]
)
pdl.ReplaceOp(op0, with_op=newOp)
def add_fold(rewriter, results, values):
a0, a1 = values
results.push_back(IntegerAttr.get(i32, a0.value + a1.value))
pdl_module = PDLModule(m)
pdl_module.register_rewrite_function("add_fold", add_fold)
```
The idea is previously discussed in Discord #mlir-python channel with
@makslevental.
---------
Co-authored-by: Maksim Levental <maksim.levental@gmail.com>
|
|
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157930 changed a few APIs from
`Mlir*` to `Py*` and broke users that were using them (see
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160183#issuecomment-3321383969).
This PR restores those APIs.
|
|
This a reland of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/155741 which
was reverted at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157831. This
version is narrower in scope - it only turns on automatic stub
generation for `MLIRPythonExtension.Core._mlir` and **does not do
anything automatically**. Specifically, the only CMake code added to
`AddMLIRPython.cmake` is the `mlir_generate_type_stubs` function which
is then used only in a manual way. The API for
`mlir_generate_type_stubs` is:
```
Arguments:
MODULE_NAME: The fully-qualified name of the extension module (used for importing in python).
DEPENDS_TARGETS: List of targets these type stubs depend on being built; usually corresponding to the
specific extension module (e.g., something like StandalonePythonModules.extension._standaloneDialectsNanobind.dso)
and the core bindings extension module (e.g., something like StandalonePythonModules.extension._mlir.dso).
OUTPUT_DIR: The root output directory to emit the type stubs into.
OUTPUTS: List of expected outputs.
DEPENDS_TARGET_SRC_DEPS: List of cpp sources for extension library (for generating a DEPFILE).
IMPORT_PATHS: List of paths to add to PYTHONPATH for stubgen.
PATTERN_FILE: (Optional) Pattern file (see https://nanobind.readthedocs.io/en/latest/typing.html#pattern-files).
Outputs:
NB_STUBGEN_CUSTOM_TARGET: The target corresponding to generation which other targets can depend on.
```
Downstream users should use `mlir_generate_type_stubs` in coordination
with `declare_mlir_python_sources` to turn on stub generation for their
own downstream dialect extensions and upstream dialect extensions if
they so choose. Standalone example shows an example.
Note, downstream will also need to set
`-DMLIR_PYTHON_PACKAGE_PREFIX=...` correctly for their bindings.
|
|
(#157487)
In https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94714, we add a python
function `apply_patterns_and_fold_greedily` which accepts an
`MlirModule` as the argument type. However, sometimes we want to apply
patterns with an `MlirOperation` argument, and there is currently no
python API to convert an `MlirOperation` to `MlirModule`.
So here we overload this function `apply_patterns_and_fold_greedily` to
do this (also a corresponding new C API
`mlirApplyPatternsAndFoldGreedilyWithOp`)
|
|
This is a companion to #118583, although it can be landed independently
because since #117922 dialects do not have to use the same Python
binding framework as the Python core code.
This PR ports all of the in-tree dialect and pass extensions to
nanobind, with the exception of those that remain for testing pybind11
support.
This PR also:
* removes CollectDiagnosticsToStringScope from NanobindAdaptors.h. This
was overlooked in a previous PR and it is duplicated in Diagnostics.h.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jacques Pienaar <jpienaar@google.com>
|
|
Relands #118583, with a fix for Python 3.8 compatibility. It was not
possible to set the buffer protocol accessers via slots in Python 3.8.
Why? https://nanobind.readthedocs.io/en/latest/why.html says it better
than I can, but my primary motivation for this change is to improve MLIR
IR construction time from JAX.
For a complicated Google-internal LLM model in JAX, this change improves
the MLIR
lowering time by around 5s (out of around 30s), which is a significant
speedup for simply switching binding frameworks.
To a large extent, this is a mechanical change, for instance changing
`pybind11::` to `nanobind::`.
Notes:
* this PR needs Nanobind 2.4.0, because it needs a bug fix
(https://github.com/wjakob/nanobind/pull/806) that landed in that
release.
* this PR does not port the in-tree dialect extension modules. They can
be ported in a future PR.
* I removed the py::sibling() annotations from def_static and def_class
in `PybindAdapters.h`. These ask pybind11 to try to form an overload
with an existing method, but it's not possible to form mixed
pybind11/nanobind overloads this ways and the parent class is now
defined in nanobind. Better solutions may be possible here.
* nanobind does not contain an exact equivalent of pybind11's buffer
protocol support. It was not hard to add a nanobind implementation of a
similar API.
* nanobind is pickier about casting to std::vector<bool>, expecting that
the input is a sequence of bool types, not truthy values. In a couple of
places I added code to support truthy values during casting.
* nanobind distinguishes bytes (`nb::bytes`) from strings (e.g.,
`std::string`). This required nb::bytes overloads in a few places.
|
|
This reverts commit 41bd35b58bb482fd466aa4b13aa44a810ad6470f.
Breakage detected, rolling back.
|
|
Why? https://nanobind.readthedocs.io/en/latest/why.html says it better
than I can, but my primary motivation for this change is to improve MLIR
IR construction time from JAX.
For a complicated Google-internal LLM model in JAX, this change improves
the MLIR
lowering time by around 5s (out of around 30s), which is a significant
speedup for simply switching binding frameworks.
To a large extent, this is a mechanical change, for instance changing
`pybind11::`
to `nanobind::`.
Notes:
* this PR needs Nanobind 2.4.0, because it needs a bug fix
(https://github.com/wjakob/nanobind/pull/806) that landed in that
release.
* this PR does not port the in-tree dialect extension modules. They can
be ported in a future PR.
* I removed the py::sibling() annotations from def_static and def_class
in `PybindAdapters.h`. These ask pybind11 to try to form an overload
with an existing method, but it's not possible to form mixed
pybind11/nanobind overloads this ways and the parent class is now
defined in nanobind. Better solutions may be possible here.
* nanobind does not contain an exact equivalent of pybind11's buffer
protocol support. It was not hard to add a nanobind implementation of a
similar API.
* nanobind is pickier about casting to std::vector<bool>, expecting that
the input is a sequence of bool types, not truthy values. In a couple of
places I added code to support truthy values during casting.
* nanobind distinguishes bytes (`nb::bytes`) from strings (e.g.,
`std::string`). This required nb::bytes overloads in a few places.
|
|
Following a rather direct approach to expose PDL usage from C and then
Python. This doesn't yes plumb through adding support for custom
matchers through this interface, so constrained to basics initially.
This also exposes greedy rewrite driver. Only way currently to define
patterns is via PDL (just to keep small). The creation of the PDL
pattern module could be improved to avoid folks potentially accessing
the module used to construct it post construction. No ergonomic work
done yet.
---------
Signed-off-by: Jacques Pienaar <jpienaar@google.com>
|
