--- title: KohakuAccel compiler framework summary: A frameworkized three-level IR for MAG + NoC-mesh accelerators, plus the tools that make a frontend, a backend and an IR easier to design. tags: - compiler - framework --- # The compiler stack Independent of the driver. The compiler produces an **artifact**; the driver executes one. Neither imports the other. ## What we ship, and what "framework" means here Shipping a working middle is not enough. A framework is judged by what it makes possible, so the question this package answers is: > **What would otherwise stop you building a compiler on top of MAG + NoC mesh, > when your workload is inside our scope?** Three answers, and they are the three halves of this package: 1. **A working middle.** Placement, round packing, coalescing, completion accounting, emission. Machine-determined, identical for every workload. 2. **An IR you inherit rather than invent.** Three levels, with traversal, verification, printing and a pass manager already written. You define what your nodes MEAN; you do not write a compiler infrastructure. 3. **Tools for the two ends.** Builders that make an L3 graph without hand-wiring it, and a declarative ISA toolkit that turns a field table into an encoder, a decoder, a validator and a disassembler. Point 3 is the one people skip and then regret. Hand-rolled bit packing is exactly the defect class `noc_pkt.vh` demonstrates in RTL — one layout restated in seven places, correct only by agreement — and a unit ISA invites the same mistake in Python. ## The pipeline your frontend L3 graph L2 schedule L1 program your backend tensor ops -> what the -> where and -> instruction -> bits on scene work is when streams the wire filter graph task set PROJECT FRAMEWORK IR FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK IR PROJECT + your nodes (all of it) + your encoding Three levels, and the claim is that **every workload in scope has all three** — only the content differs. | | L3: graph | L2: schedule | L1: program | |---|---|---|---| | **tensor** | shaped tensor ops, fusion | passes over tiles, on clusters | GEMM/FILL/DRAIN instructions | | **ray tracing** | scene, BVH build, bounce stages | tiles x bounces, on units | trace/shade instruction per tile | | **DSP** | a filter graph | stage x block, pinned pipeline | filter opcodes and coefficients | | **CPU mesh** | parallelizable task decomposition | sub-kernel per core, per superstep | the sub-kernel's compiled code | For a CPU mesh the chain reads: *complex parallelizable task* -> *a graph of how it splits into parallel stages* -> *a schedule binding stages to cores and supersteps* -> *one sub-kernel per core* -> your own compiler turns that sub-kernel into code. The last arrow is a backend we do not own, and the ISA toolkit is aimed exactly there. ## What the topology forces — the reason a middle exists at all Six constraints, none from a workload. **1. Work must be placed on coordinates.** Endpoints live at `(x, y)`. **2. Distance is computable.** XY dimension-order routing makes hops between two endpoints exactly `|Δx| + |Δy|`, so a placement cost function exists without knowing what is placed. **3. Memory is reached by descriptor, ahead of time.** No demand fetch, so every compiler emits explicit movement and every task has a statically known footprint or does not fit. **4. Dispatch is in bounded rounds.** `stage_flits` and `ncmd` bound one round; packing is the same arithmetic for a GEMM or a bounce. **5. Credit bounds in-flight instructions per unit.** Exceeding `INST_DEPTH` does not slow the machine, it wedges it: a full instruction FIFO backpressures the link carrying the memory responses that unit is waiting for. A scheduler that does not model this emits programs that hang. **6. Completion is counted, not named.** Knowing how many completions a round produces is a compile-time obligation. ## What the topology gives — and why it generalises **Multi-destination reads.** A read request carries extra destinations, so one fetch, one pass through the transform stage, serves several units. Usually described as a tensor trick — every cluster sweeps the same rows of A — but it is nothing of the kind: - tensor: shared A-operand rows - ray tracing: BVH top levels, which every tile reads - CPU mesh: a shared code page - DSP: a shared coefficient table **So coalescing is a framework pass.** It depends only on two tasks declaring the same region, never on what the region holds. The *communication* optimisations generalise even though the *computation* does not — that is the payoff of a NoC substrate, and it is most of why the middle is worth having. ## The upper seam: builders, so a frontend is not hand-wired Four shapes cover every workload above: | builder | shape | used by | |---|---|---| | `spread` | one domain, N independent pieces | GEMM tiles, ray tiles, DSP blocks, SPMD cores | | `chain` | stage k feeds stage k+1 | DSP pipelines, multi-pass rendering | | `gather` | many pieces reduce into one | K-reduction, ray accumulation, histogram merge | | `iterate` | repeat a body, barrier between | bounces, solver iterations, CPU supersteps | A ray-tracing frontend is roughly `iterate(bounces, lambda k: spread(tiles, trace(k)))`. A CPU-mesh frontend is `spread` with `policy=PINNED`. A DSP frontend is `chain`. They compose, and composing them is what a frontend is at this layer. ## The lower seam: an ISA you declare rather than pack The backend contract is four methods, one required. But the work behind `encode` is where projects lose time, so the framework ships a field-table toolkit: LOAD = InstFormat("LOAD", [ Field("op", 8, const=0x01), Field("dst", 4), Field("addr", 34), Field("len", 16), ]) From that one declaration you get `encode(**kwargs)` with range checking on every field, `decode(word)`, a disassembler, and a round-trip test. Overlapping or over-wide fields raise at construction rather than producing traffic that routes plausibly and means something else. ## Where this stops - **Software pipelining across rounds does not fit.** A barrier separates rounds. A DSP chain wanting stage `k` of block `b+1` overlapped with stage `k+1` of block `b` wants what the round model forbids — such a workload emits ONE round of long-running tasks that stream unit-to-unit and pipelines inside the units. - **Data-dependent dispatch does not fit.** A footprint must be known before staging; discovering what to read by reading means splitting into rounds and paying a host round trip. - **Dynamic work stealing does not fit.** Placement is compile-time. Uneven ray tiles will straggle; the answer is smaller tasks and more rounds. - **Tiling is not ours.** Tile shape needs capacities, reuse and a cost model that are project-specific. It happens at L3. ## Layout compiler/ kohakuaccel/ ir/ base.py l3.py l2.py l1.py verify.py printer.py passes/ manager.py infer.py place.py pack.py coalesce.py emit.py frontend/ build.py domain.py backend/ isa.py slots.py machine.py where units are, what bounds a round, hop cost artifact.py the symbolic schedule a driver executes compile.py the default pipeline kohakutpu/ the tensor frontend and backend examples/ saxpy, readable in one sitting tests/