initial commit to enable amx

[ziyizhang-1]

As mentioned in x86_amx_intrinsics

Completed AMX Intrinsics:
amx-tile

• _tile_loadconfig
• _tile_storeconfig
• _tile_loadd
• _tile_release
• _tile_stored
• _tile_stream_loadd
• _tile_zero
  amx-int8
• _tile_dpbssd
• _tile_dpbsud
• _tile_dpbusd
• _tile_dpbuud
  amx-bf16
• _tile_dpbf16ps
  amx-fp16
• _tile_dpfp16ps
  amx-complex
• _tile_cmmimfp16ps
• _tile_cmmrlfp16ps

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Amanieu (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

[sayantn]

Can you please run cargo test -p stdarch-verify with the PRINT_MISSING_LISTS_MARKDOWN constant set to true? This would update the missing-x86.md file to reflect the new added intrinsics. Also, please do not edit the x86-intel.xml file manually. Download the latest from Intel's website (I think v3.6.9 currently) and replace this.

Also, there are very few amx intrinsics, so they can be implemented in a single amx.rs file instead of 5 files

[sayantn]

Even though windows doesn't need the syscall, you still need to have the function to compile. Maybe add an empty init_amx function with #[cfg(all(target_arch = "x86_64", windows))]

[ziyizhang-1]

Even though windows doesn't need the syscall, you still need to have the function to compile. Maybe add an empty init_amx function with #[cfg(all(target_arch = "x86_64", windows))]

yep, that's a good workaround to prevent repeated condition check

[ziyizhang-1]

Can you please run cargo test -p stdarch-verify with the PRINT_MISSING_LISTS_MARKDOWN constant set to true? This would update the missing-x86.md file to reflect the new added intrinsics. Also, please do not edit the x86-intel.xml file manually. Download the latest from Intel's website (I think v3.6.9 currently) and replace this.

Also, there are very few amx intrinsics, so they can be implemented in a single amx.rs file instead of 5 files

updated x86-intel.xml to v3.6.9, please help to review the change

[sayantn]

The x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-emulated CI runs all the tests (using Intel SDE), so your implementation amx-complex and amx-fp16 has been tested.

Also, maybe squash all these small commits into one single commit, just for the sake of cleanliness

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably fb90dfa) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[sayantn]

@Amanieu should we keep the __tilecfg type? It indeed makes for a nice abstraction (all C programs that use amx have to define a struct or use an array because C lacks this type)

[Amanieu]

I don't think we should be inventing our own API in this crate, we should strictly follow the vendor's API. What if Intel decides to add its own __tilecfg type in the future that is incompatible with ours? I think it is best to leave this to an external crate. That crate can also deal with other AMX-related issues such as the syscalls needed for initialization.

[ziyizhang-1]

I understood the concern raised by @Amanieu; there is indeed some probability that Intel will change the definition of the tile configuration in the future, for example, increasing/decreasing the number of tiles, which can lead to a change of the config layout. Anyway, I just moved __tilecfg to the tests mod, and considering the current feature x86_amx_intrinsics is still unstable, any different points of view can be welcomed and discussed.

[Amanieu]

Everything else looks good, so this can be merged once the i32 issue is fixed.