[frontend] Sort signature/constants when hashing #3258
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I'm trying to maximize the number of (distributed) cache hits I'm getting on kernels, and dictionary iteration order seems like a possible randomizing factor. I don't think there's *technically* a problem here, because Python now guarantees insertion ordering and I don't see a way the ordering here could vary, since they're argument-index ordered. But it also feels like a reasonable sort of belt-and-suspenders protection against this being randomized, and this sort should be low-cost since it's just done at kernel compile time.
|
I'm totally not wedded to this btw, if y'all don't think it's worth doing I won't land it. It was just something that stuck out to me while I was debugging why I was getting so many cache misses. |
jlebar
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2024
htyu
pushed a commit
to htyu/triton
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2024
I'm trying to maximize the number of (distributed) cache hits I'm getting on kernels, and dictionary iteration order seems like a possible randomizing factor. I don't think there's *technically* a problem here, because Python now guarantees insertion ordering and I don't see a way the ordering here could vary, since they're argument-index ordered. But it also feels like a reasonable sort of belt-and-suspenders protection against this being randomized, and this sort should be low-cost since it's just done at kernel compile time.
karupayun
pushed a commit
to openxla/triton
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2024
I'm trying to maximize the number of (distributed) cache hits I'm getting on kernels, and dictionary iteration order seems like a possible randomizing factor. I don't think there's *technically* a problem here, because Python now guarantees insertion ordering and I don't see a way the ordering here could vary, since they're argument-index ordered. But it also feels like a reasonable sort of belt-and-suspenders protection against this being randomized, and this sort should be low-cost since it's just done at kernel compile time.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I'm trying to maximize the number of (distributed) cache hits I'm getting on kernels, and dictionary iteration order seems like a possible randomizing factor.
I don't think there's technically a problem here, because Python now guarantees insertion ordering and I don't see a way the ordering here could vary, since they're argument-index ordered.
But it also feels like a reasonable sort of belt-and-suspenders protection against this being randomized, and this sort should be low-cost since it's just done at kernel compile time.