Adding a Compiler Pass to Relay
导航
Adding a Compiler Pass to Relay#
Compiler passes are the primary interface for both extending Relay’s feature set and for performing optimizations on Relay programs. By writing a compiler pass, you can modify the AST or collect information about the AST, depending on your goal. Indeed, some of Relay’s most important built-in features (e.g., autodiff and type inference) are nothing more than “standard” compiler passes.
At a high level, there are two key components to writing a pass:
Creating one or more C++ classes that traverse the program
Wrapping the traversal implementation and its metadata in the pass manager API so it can neatly interface with the Pass Infrastructure
To begin, we’ll give an overview of the key mechanisms for writing a compiler pass. Then, we’ll walk through a concrete example of the constant-folding pass in Relay.
AST Traversers#
The base class used to traverse Relay programs is ExprFunctor
. The public
interface it provides is a VisitExpr
method that takes an expression and
zero or more arguments and returns an instance of some type. When you extend
this class, you define the AST traversal pattern by overriding
implementations of VisitExpr_
for each type of expression.
The relation between VisitExpr
and VisitExpr_
has to do with
dispatch. Each VisitExpr_
definition targets a specific type of
expression, but you don’t always know which node type you’ll be visiting.
To remedy this, ExprFunctor
provides a VisitExpr
function which
routes from the given expression to the VisitExpr_
case that handles it.
Although C++ already provides dynamic dispatch, ExprFunctor
defines its
own vtable, which VisitExpr
uses. By defining our own vtable, we have
more control over dispatch. For example, if we wanted to define a
PrintVisitor
traverser that printed “Here” before every visit, we
could override VisitExpr
:
void PrintVisitor::VisitExpr(const Expr& expr) {
std::cout << "Here" << std::endl;
ExprFunctor::VisitExpr(expr);
}
ExprFunctor
itself is a very general class, which is why more often than
not, you will be extending ExprVisitor
or ExprMutator
. These classes
extend ExprFunctor
and provide default implementations of VisitExpr_
that capture common traversal patterns for each expression type. Having these
default implementations means we only need to provide overriding
implementations for the expression types where we want different behavior. We
describe each subclass on its own in the following sections.
Expression Visitors#
ExprVisitor
is for passes that don’t modify the program and instead
perform program analyses and collect information. With this class,
VisitExpr
and the private counterparts return nothing. The VisitExpr_
implementations provided by this class simply visit all of the expression’s
fields that are expressions. The default implementation for IfNode
is
shown below.
void ExprVisitor::VisitExpr_(const IfNode* op) {
this->VisitExpr(op->cond);
this->VisitExpr(op->true_branch);
this->VisitExpr(op->false_branch);
}
Note that we’re calling VisitExpr
and not VisitExpr_
here, so we can
use the vtable in ExprFunctor
for routing.
Now, if we wanted to write a class CallChecker
that checks if any
function calls appear in the program, we would only need to extend
ExprVisitor
and define the following VisitExpr_
method:
void VisitExpr_(const CallNode* n) final {
result_ = true;
}
where result_
is a field. In this case, we don’t need to further recurse
on the fields of the CallNode
, because result_
is already true and we
now know the original expression contains a call. To make this visitor
usable, we would provide the following public method:
bool Check(const Expr& expr) final {
result_ = false;
VisitExpr(expr);
return result_;
}
And that’s all we need. It is very common to define a public interface that
performs some bookkeeping before invoking the top-level recursion. We could
of course further wrap the API by making a standalone procedure that creates
a CallChecker
instance and calls Check
on it, but the takeaway is
that we’ve achieved our goal with very little effort.
Expression Mutators#
ExprMutator
is for passes that transform the program in some way. With
this class, VisitExpr
and its private counterparts return Expr
. The
default VisitExpr_
implementations provided by this class visit all of
the expression’s fields that are expressions and set the fields to be the
result of visiting them. The default implementation for TupleGetItemNode
is shown below.
Expr ExprMutator::VisitExpr_(const TupleGetItemNode* g) {
auto t = this->Mutate(g->tuple);
if (g->tuple == t) {
return GetRef<Expr>(g);
} else {
return TupleGetItem(t, g->index);
}
}
There are a few things to notice here. First, Mutate
is an alias for
VisitExpr
in ExprMutator
. Second, we only return a new node if the
call to Mutate
modified the tuple
field. This method of update is
called a functional update and doing so avoids unnecessary allocations.
One feature ExprMutator
has that ExprVisitor
doesn’t is a built-in
memo_
field for caching results. It makes sense that ExprMutator
has
a memoizer, because we know which types of results we’re caching (i.e.,
Expr
), whereas the visit methods of ExprVisitor
don’t return
anything. Usually, when we want to cache results in a subclass of
ExprVisitor
, we need to define the cache ourselves.
Now, if we wanted to write a class IfCollapser
that replaces every if
statement with its true branch, we would override VisitExpr_
for
IfNode
:
Expr ExprMutator::VisitExpr_(const IfNode* op) {
return this->Mutate(op->true_branch);
}
Note that the returned expression will not necessarily be an IfNode
, and
this is fine, because the return type is Expr
. Now, we create the public
interface:
Expr CollapseIfs(const Expr& expr) final {
return this->Mutate(expr);
}
With this mutator, we didn’t need to do any bookkeeping, but we still want to follow the convention of having a descriptive method as the interface.
Example: Constant Folding#
In order to better understand the process of writing a pass, we will look at the constant folding pass (found in src/relay/transforms/fold_constant.cc) as a guide, because it is a relatively simple pass that incorporates both types of traversals.
Constant folding involves evaluating expressions in the program that only
involve constant values, then replacing those expressions with the result
of evaluating them. The goal of this pass is to frontload all of the
computations that we can. To achieve this, the constant folding pass makes
use of a visitor (ConstantChecker
) and a mutator (ConstantFolder
).
The ConstantChecker
Visitor#
This visitor is used to check if an expression is constant. In Relay, we
define an expression to be constant if it is a ConstantNode
or it is a
TupleNode
with only constant fields.
We use a memo_
field to map from nodes to whether they are constant and
to cache these results. Below are the VisitExpr_
definitions in the
ConstantChecker
.
void VisitExpr_(const ConstantNode* n) final {
memo_[GetRef<Constant>(n)] = true;
}
void VisitExpr_(const TupleNode* n) final {
bool result = true;
for (const auto& field : n->fields) {
if (!Check(field)) {
result = false;
break;
}
}
memo_[GetRef<Tuple>(n)] = result;
}
The bookkeeping used to coordinate these definitions is a Check
method
that returns whether the given expression is considered constant.
bool Check(const Expr& expr) {
const auto it = memo_.find(expr);
if (it != memo_.end())
return it->second;
VisitExpr(expr);
return memo_[expr];
}
We don’t modify memo_
for every node we encounter; instead we only modify
memo_
when the encountered node could potentially be constant. Then we
rely on the default value being false when memo_
doesn’t contain
expr
.
The ConstantFolder
Mutator#
This mutator performs the bulk of the constant folding pass and internally
uses ConstantChecker
. In Relay, there are three node types that are
involved in constant folding: LetNode
, TupleItemGetNode
, and
CallNode
. In the following paragraphs, we explain the roles of each in
the pass.
Expr VisitExpr_(const LetNode* op) final {
Expr value = this->Mutate(op->value);
if (value.as<ConstantNode>()) {
memo_[op->var] = value;
return this->Mutate(op->body);
} else {
Var var = Downcast<Var>(this->Mutate(op->var));
Expr body = this->Mutate(op->body);
if (var.same_as(op->var) &&
value.same_as(op->value) &&
body.same_as(op->body)) {
return GetRef<Expr>(op);
} else {
return Let(var, value, body);
}
}
}
In the LetNode
case, we first attempt to const-fold the value being bound
in the expression. If we can, then we populate memo_
and return the
result of visiting the body—essentially, propagating the bound value to its
use sites in the body. If we can’t const-fold the bound value, we mimic the
default implementation.
Expr VisitExpr_(const TupleGetItemNode* op) final {
Expr res = ExprMutator::VisitExpr_(op);
op = res.as<TupleGetItemNode>();
if (const auto* tuple = op->tuple.as<TupleNode>()) {
return tuple->fields[op->index];
} else {
return res;
}
}
In the TupleItemGetNode
case, we check if op->tuple
field is a
TupleNode
. If so, we replace the tuple get with the field of the tuple
pointed to by op->index
. The reason we need to check is because
op->tuple
might evaluate to a tuple, without itself being a tuple.
Expr VisitExpr_(const CallNode* call) final {
static auto op_stateful = Op::GetAttrMap<TOpIsStateful>("TOpIsStateful");
Expr res = ExprMutator::VisitExpr_(call);
call = res.as<CallNode>();
// We don't constant fold function with zero arguments.
// This is a heuristic that is useful.
// For example it is harmful to fold ones(shape=(4, 5)).
if (call->args.size() == 0) return res;
const OpNode* op = call->op.as<OpNode>();
if (op == nullptr) return res;
// skip stateful ops.
if (op_stateful.get(GetRef<Op>(op), false)) return res;
bool all_const_args = true;
for (Expr arg : call->args) {
if (!checker_.Check(arg)) {
all_const_args = false;
}
}
if (all_const_args) {
return ConstEvaluate(res);
} else {
return res;
}
}
In the CallNode
case, we first use the VisitExpr_
of ExprMutator
to visit the call, which const-folds all of the fields of the call. We use
ExprMutator::VisitExpr_
instead of VisitExpr
, because we want to
bypass the vtable (to avoid an infinite loop) and use the default
implementation provided by ExprMutator
. Then we evaluate the call only if
all of the arguments are constant (using ConstantChecker
). Evaluating the
call produces a value, so we use a helper method ValueToExpr
to allow
us to place the evaluated expression back into the AST.
Now, we construct a more convenient interface FoldConstant
for our constant
folder. FoldConstant
is a standalone function outside of the ConstantFolder
class that takes an expression and internally creates and uses a
ConstantFolder
instance (the full definition can be found in
src/relay/transforms/fold_constant.cc).
Registering a Pass with the Pass Manager#
Note: please see the documentation on the :ref:`pass-infra` for more specific detail on this subject.
With the AST traversers written, the pass can be registered to become a TVM API endpoint with the following code:
namespace transform {
Pass FoldConstant() {
runtime::TypedPackedFunc<Function(Function, Module, PassContext)> pass_func =
[=](Function f, Module m, PassContext pc) {
return Downcast<Function>(FoldConstant(f));
};
return CreateFunctionPass(pass_func, 2, "FoldConstant", {});
}
} // namespace transform
If the Pass
object produced by the above code is given to the pass infrastructure,
it will ensure that the AST traversal is applied to every function in the
given Relay module, which is the behavior one would expect for a constant folding
pass (it should fold all constants where possible).
The function CreateFunctionPass
allows for registering the optimization level of the pass (in this case, 2), which can
be used to group together passes based on their general utility, a name for the pass,
and any dependencies for the pass. A pass’s dependencies are given as a list of any passes
whose results are necessary to be able to run the current pass. FoldConstant
does not
have any dependencies, but many Relay passes do depend on having type information,
so InferType
is a common dependency; others may depend on the program’s being in
A-normal form, via the ToANormalForm
pass.
Note that the PassContext
object contains information a pass uses for
error reporting and configuration options; FoldConstant
does not need
this information but other passes may reference their PassContext
objects.
The pass can now be invoked via the pass infrastructure, though it’s a good idea to also add a Python binding for the pass, as in this code snippet:
TVM_REGISTER_GLOBAL("relay._transform.FoldConstant")
.set_body_typed(FoldConstant);
Once Pass
objects are defined in the above fashion, they can be invoked using the
pass infrastructure’s Sequential
construct, which takes a list of passes and applies
them in sequence to a Relay module, obtaining a transformed module as a result. For example,
the below code applies both the FoldConstant
and ToANormalForm
passes
(one after the other) to each function in mod
and obtains a new module.
seq = transform.Sequential([
relay.transform.FoldConstant(),
relay.transform.ToANormalForm()
])
new_mod = seq(mod)
More detail about registration can be found in TVM 运行时系统 and more information about the pass manager interface can be found in Pass Infrastructure. Relay’s standard passes are listed in include/tvm/relay/transform.h and implemented in src/relay/transforms/.