@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ Scheduling languages are, without a doubt, one of the most popular approaches fo
|
||||
Limitations
|
||||
++++++++++++
|
||||
|
||||
This ease-of-development comes at a cost. First of all, existing systems that follow this paradigm tend to be noticeably slower than Triton on modern hardware when applicable (e.g., V100/A100 tensor cores w/ equal tile sizes). I do believe that this is not a fundamental issue of scheduling languages -- in the sense that it could probably be solved with more efforts -- but it could mean that these systems are harder to engineer. More importantly, existing scheduling languages generate loops whose bounds and increments cannot depend on surrounding loop indice without at least imposing severe constraints on possible schedules -- if not breaking the system entirely. This is problematic for sparse computations, whose iteration spaces may be irregular.
|
||||
This ease-of-development comes at a cost. First of all, existing systems that follow this paradigm tend to be noticeably slower than Triton on modern hardware when applicable (e.g., V100/A100 tensor cores w/ equal tile sizes). I do believe that this is not a fundamental issue of scheduling languages -- in the sense that it could probably be solved with more efforts -- but it could mean that these systems are harder to engineer. More importantly, existing scheduling languages generate loops whose bounds and increments cannot depend on surrounding loop indices without at least imposing severe constraints on possible schedules -- if not breaking the system entirely. This is problematic for sparse computations, whose iteration spaces may be irregular.
|
||||
|
||||
.. table::
|
||||
:widths: 50 50
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user