> I’m still stuck on reverse_compute_at which seems like a long name, and is > still a bit too magical for me to understand
Yeah I once had some discussion with @tqchen and @spectrometerHBH that reverse_compute_at is too long and tedious, and I agree it will be great to find some better names (we are always bad at it admittedly)... Perhaps @spectrometerHBH could give a specific example of using `reverse_compute_at` to avoid duplicate splitting? > vmap lets you do something then “zoom” into the area, forget entirely about > the outer dimension, and focus on that Yeah `vmap` is a powerful tool - it sounds more like "batching" (either static or dynamic), but its functionality can certainly go beyond that by being applied multiple times. One problem of `vmap` if we want to introduce to TensorIR is the semantics: do we consider it as adding a data parallel loop on top of the producer block of each output buffer? I believe @tqchen has more thoughts on this. > write a separately scoped bit of code that doesn’t even know about the outer > construction at all The idea sounds pretty much like our "block isolation" construct. A "block" in the TensorIR means doing isolated computation without having to know the outer scope. The difference is that the `with` scope you mentioned does not effectively change the IR, hence it is more like syntactic sugar to hint the schedule class that some primitives should operative locally, while the `Block` in TensorIR is an IR construct that really enforces some restrictions. CC @Hzfengsy @spectrometerHBH @tqchen would love to hear your opinions --- [Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-tensorir-a-schedulable-ir-for-tvm/7872/47) to respond. You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode. To unsubscribe from these emails, [click here](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/email/unsubscribe/448533130f112297da3575711cd06f390c7c5424baca65748389314641302c96).
