-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 106
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Input Access Count Mismatch in Timeloop ISPASS 2020 Tutorial #295
Comments
Could you please paste the exact YAMLs you used (you can concatenate them into a a single file and upload). Please also indicate which version of Timeloop you used. |
I used timeloop-model in Timeloop.v4 with TimeloopFE, as guided by the tutorial. You can observe the MainMemory->STATS->Inputs->Scalar reads = 48 (P
The same behavior is observed when I change the permutation in 'exercise 2 tiled mapping'. Attachment: Input YAML file parsed by timeloopFE |
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and thank you for the detailed reproduction instructions. I successfully reproduced the issue. It was a pretty serious and longstanding bug, although fortunately the fix was just a few localized lines of code. I have pushed the fix to the branch translation_fix. Could you please test it on your end and let me know if it's working? |
I have tested all the mappings introduced in the ISCA '20 tutorial, exercise 2. Thanks to your excellent work, no further issues were observed. |
Hello!
While running the ISPASS 2020 tutorial (timeloop-accelergy-exercises/workspace/tutorial_exercises/01_accelergy_timeloop_2020_ispass), I observed that applying the input stationary dataflow to the MainMemory level in the 1D convolution problem produced input access counts that differ from the theoretical values.
Observed Mapping
Expected Behavior
I expected the results of this mapping to match those in the second row of the 'MainMemory accesses' table captured from the ISCA tutorial slideset below:
Observed Behavior
However, the MainMemory Scalar Reads count turned out to be different. Specifically:
I obtained the expected results when applying a Weight-Stationary mapping at the MainMemory level(as shown in the first row of the table).
I would like to understand why this difference occurs.
Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: