Rather than a per-global-slot initializer region, we now have one for
the whole module. For example, it might look like this:
```
torch.global_slot "private" @tensor : !torch.tensor
torch.global_slot "private" @list : !torch.list<tensor>
torch.global_slot.module_initializer {
%0 = torch.tensor.literal(dense<0.0> : tensor<f32>) : !torch.tensor
%1 = torch.prim.ListConstruct %0 : (!torch.tensor) -> !torch.list<tensor>
torch.initialize.global_slots [
@tensor(%0 : !torch.tensor)
@list(%1 : !torch.list<tensor>)
]
}
```
This new structure allows GlobalizeObjectGraph to create the initializer in a
much simpler way, avoiding the need to reason about whether different slots
alias each other. Reasoning about whether slots alias each other now is the
responsibility of InlineGlobalSlots, which has to do a much more complicated
analysis, implemented using MLIR's dataflow analysis framework.
Recommended review order:
- Check out the new IR constructs in the .mlir files of various passes
- Op definitions (*.td)
- Changes to GlobalizeObjectGraph pass.
- InlineGlobalSlots pass (~total rewrite)
- Misc changes:
- Moving torchMlirAdjustStaticInformation for sharing with C++ code.
- EraseModuleInitializer pass
To make this a bit nicer, it would be good to have a `torch.module` op
with an initializer region attached. That would be more invasive though.
This change has highlighted certain aspects of our project layering
which are worth calling out. None of our backends can handle global
slots, so we enforce that there are no global slots before backend
lowering. At an earlier stage in the project, we had aspirations of
transparently handling mutable global state and such, but for reasons
described below, that is no longer a goal. So really global slots should
be seen as a progressive lowering step as part of inlining all the
IValue's in the original program (GlobalizeObjectGraph is also one such
step).
Over time, with insights from work like IREE-JAX, it has become clear
that there isn't a reliable programming model we can compile for users
where we just transparently handle mutable global state (and some other
things, like lists and dictionaries). There is a need for an "outer
program" that orchestrates more restricted subroutines of the kind we
can handle in our compile flow here. The benefit of that is that it
decouples considerations like shapes, dtypes, etc. from the program
constructs used in the outer program. As long as the outer program can
efficiently invoke (pipelining/async/etc.) high-performance
data-parallel numerical subroutines of the kind we compile in our flow
here, then there is a complete programming model. This is also
consistent with the direction of upstream PyTorch which is becoming more
tracing-based (which inherently loses a lot of program structure, which
then has to be applied back with an "outer program" orchestrating the
traced subroutines).
Sean Silva