To elaborate on C2, while it is desirable and recommended to have consolidated
runtime, executor choice when possible. Naturally there are cases that would
requires a bit of generalization. The multi-machine case is one example.
There are also other examples that can appear on a single SoC. Consider the
following scenario, where there is an accelerator that comes with a CPU-like
co-processor as controller.
```bash
- host: arm
- runtime: vm
- vdevice0: accelerator-with-coprocessor
- host: risc-v
- runtime: graph
- device: my-accelerator
```
In this case, the host is a ARM chip that drives the overall computation(say
through VM). The co-processor, however, also comes with its own controller,
that is able to execute a sub-graph of computation, which in turn dispatches to
my-accelerator. As a result, we will need to compile a tvm runtime(that may be
different from the host) one, and use that to drive the graph computation on
the co-processor.
Back to the compilation path. I agree that it is important to build a standard
pipeline. I would also like to note that we need to design to be compatible of
emerging needs. Allowing target specification to be recursive, while validating
them, would help the ecosystem to develop these capabilities. Additionally,
some of the needs can appear now, for example, we could see a need to have a
more flexible VM runtime that drives GPU computation, while offloading subgraph
to cuda-graph(more efficient and less flexible).
Finally to build on @Mousius 's point. Allowing target to be recursive does not
preclude structure or naming. Targets have kinds and schemas that attached to
each kind. Further validation can also be done throughout the process. So
instead of
```
(CompilationConfig)
-> (Target-CUDA), (Target-X86)
-> (Executor)
-> (Runtime)
```
We would get
```
(Target-Kind=Hetro-Exec)
-> (Target-Kind=CUDA), (Target-Kind=X86)
-> (Executor)
-> (Runtime)
```
>From the UX's pov, we do not need to force user to pass in such compositional
>ones(that is complicated) if they only care about single device execution (and
>canonicalize internally).
Even better you will be able to leverage the tagging features at different
level, so user can just pass in
```python
build(mod, target="my-hetro-exec-platform0")
```
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/pre-rfc-compilation-configuration-representation/11372/14)
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/fdd5931911f5cde301da2e3daa5b83320acc2535fac0b7dd57f607389f78e971).
