Neat. XLA predates MLIR. Interesting stories there. You'd have to stop by the Bay Area LLVM monthly meetup to hear them. :-X
> So if XLA already uses LLVM, why is our approach different?
Uses MLIR, XLA does not.
> So… what is the point?
> Honestly? We aren’t entirely sure yet.
> Let me be perfectly clear: this is not going to beat XLA for standard deep learning workloads. XLA has years of hyper-specific optimizations for linear algebra on GPUs and TPUs. If you are training a massive transformer, stick to standard JAX.
> But what we do think is cool is what happens when you connect JAX directly to the broader LLVM ecosystem and drop the heavy XLA runtime. (Plus, no need to build XLA using Bazel either! You’re welcome.)
infinitewalk•11m ago
> Neat. XLA predates MLIR. Interesting stories there. You'd have to stop by the Bay Area LLVM monthly meetup to hear them. :-X
I would love to hear those stories! Sadly I'm based in Toronto, so dropping by the Bay Area meetups isn't in the cards anytime soon.
If any of that history ever makes it into a blog post, I'd be first in line to read it.
ndesaulniers•47m ago
> So if XLA already uses LLVM, why is our approach different?
Uses MLIR, XLA does not.
> So… what is the point?
> Honestly? We aren’t entirely sure yet.
> Let me be perfectly clear: this is not going to beat XLA for standard deep learning workloads. XLA has years of hyper-specific optimizations for linear algebra on GPUs and TPUs. If you are training a massive transformer, stick to standard JAX.
> But what we do think is cool is what happens when you connect JAX directly to the broader LLVM ecosystem and drop the heavy XLA runtime. (Plus, no need to build XLA using Bazel either! You’re welcome.)
infinitewalk•11m ago
I would love to hear those stories! Sadly I'm based in Toronto, so dropping by the Bay Area meetups isn't in the cards anytime soon.
If any of that history ever makes it into a blog post, I'd be first in line to read it.