Tilegym Improve Cutile Kernel Perf

Iterative cuTile Kernel Performance Optimization

Systematically profile, diagnose bottlenecks, and iteratively tune a cuTile kernel's performance in the TileGym repository.

Instructions

Follow the three phases in order: Setup the environment and baseline, run the Experimentation loop with a tracked log, then iterate The experiment loop until perf goals are met or further gains plateau.

Setup

Work with user to prepare optimization environment:

• Create a fresh git branch: Propose a branch name, e.g., cutile-perf-<kernel_name>-<date> from current branch. Checkout git checkout -b <branch name>
• Locate the target kernel:
• cuTile kernels live under src/tilegym/suites/<suite>/cutile/ or src/tilegym/ops/cutile/
• Read the kernel file and identify: the @ct.kernel decorated function(s), the launch wrapper (ct.launch() or ct_experimental.autotune_launch()), the @register_impl registration, and current autotune configs (if any)
• Classify the kernel:
• Arithmetic Intensity < 10 -> Memory-bound
• Arithmetic Intensity 10-50 -> Balanced
• Arithmetic Intensity > 50 -> Compute-bound

Note: classification is only used to pick the optimization priority order in the experiment loop. The core metric is always latency (ms).

• Check GPU environment:
• Ensure a GPU node (Blackwell or Ampere GPU) is available
• All subsequent benchmark commands should run on the GPU node
• Study related references:
• references/optimization-playbook.md: Step-by-step recipes for each optimization (A through J) with before/after code examples
• references/perf-knobs-catalog.md: Complete catalog of all tunable parameters (TMA, persistent scheduling, occupancy, tile sizes, latency hints, etc.)
• references/cutile-api-reference.md: cuTile API reference and 18 critical rules
• references/performance-model.md: Roofline/performance model, bottleneck diagnosis, autotuning
• references/ir-dump-guide.md: IR dump, analysis, and error diagnosis
• references/cutile-patterns-reference.md: Common cuTile patterns and conversion quick-reference
• Create @sandbox/perf_results.md to track progress. The first run will write a baseline
• Confirm and go: Once you get confirmation, kick off the experimentation

Experimentation

Every experiment iteration applies ONE optimization to the target kernel, verifies correctness, re-benchmarks, and records results. Each iteration should be enforced to finish within 10 minutes.

The goal

• Improve the core metric: reduce latency (ms)
• Subject to the core constraint: Correctness shall not regress — every optimization MUST preserve numerical correctness. latency (ms) shall not regress > 2% compared to baseline.

What you can change

• The target kernel file under src/tilegym/suites/<suite>/cutile/ or src/tilegym/ops/cutile/: kernel body, tile sizes, occupancy, num_ctas, TMA usage, latency hints, flush_to_zero, autotune configs, persistent scheduling, and other cuTile-specific parameters
• The kernel's launch wrapper: grid computation, autotune config space
• @sandbox/: Feel free to add new files or modify files created by you, but don't check to git

What you can NOT change

• Kernel functional semantics (inputs, outputs, and numerical behavior within tolerance)
• Test infrastructure and benchmark harness
• Anything not listed above

What to expect from experiment outputs

Correctness test:

python -m pytest tests/suites/.../test_<kernel_name>.py -k "test_ and cutile and not test_perf" -v

Performance benchmark:

For each iteration:

• Run pytest benchmark: python -m pytest ... --print-record → extract latency (ms)
• Record latency in perf_results.md

Benchmark cmdlines:

python -m pytest tests/suites/.../test_<kernel_name>.py -k "test_perf and cutile" --print-record -v

latency sample:

Cutile: {'forward': {'mean': 3.7903138461538455, 'std': 0.0016941310873207053, 'rel_std': 0.044696327430505396, 'median': 3.789880999999999, 'min': 3.7883389999999992, 'max': 3.7941230000000004, 'nrep': 13, 'peak_mem_mb': 913}} ms

Track experiment progress

Use @sandbox/perf_results.md to record each iteration's results. It should only contain a Markdown table with 5 columns:

• iteration: iteration number, starting from 0 (baseline)
• optimization: what was applied (e.g., "baseline", "TMA replace gather", "persistent scheduling")
• latency_ms: kernel latency in milliseconds, six decimal points
• correctness: PASS or FAIL
• status: Whether this iteration was keep, revert, or crash

Example content:

| iteration | optimization       | latency_ms | correctness | status |
|----------:|:-------------------|-----------:|:------------|-------:|
| 0         | baseline           |   0.820000 | PASS        | keep   |
| 1         | TMA replace gather |   0.390000 | PASS        | keep   |

Create the tabular header if the file was empty. Append one line for each iteration.

The baseline

The first iteration (iteration 0) will not change any code and simply run the correctness test and performance benchmark. Results will be listed at the first row as baseline.

The experiment loop

Core methodology is to apply ONE optimization per iteration from the playbook, verify correctness, benchmark, and decide whether to keep or revert. Try one optimization at a time, and have clean experiment records.

LOOP:

• Check git status: Current git branch/commit we're on
• Select and apply ONE optimization from references/optimization-playbook.md:
• Verify correctness — if fails, revert immediately. Common causes: flush_to_zero/rounding_mode=APPROX changed results, tile size OOB, allow_tma=False semantics, persistent loop bound error
• Re-benchmark and compare against current baseline
• Git commit
• Record results to @sandbox/perf_results.md
• Decision rules:

| Outcome | Action |

|---------|--------|

| Improvement(latency (ms)) >= 5% | Accept as new baseline, continue |

| Improvement 2-5% | Accept, lower priority for next iteration |

| Improvement < 2% | Accept but stop unless user wants more |

| Regression on any config | Revert immediately, try next optimization |

| No improvement after 2 consecutive iterations | Stop |

| Root cause is scheduling or unknown | Escalate to user |

• If keeping, advance the baseline numbers and continue loop

10. If reverting, git reset back to where you started and try the next optimization in priority order

UNTIL: all attempts are finished, or more than 25 iterations have occurred, or the user interrupts

*Be autonomous*: Ask user clarifications at setup phase. Once stepped into the experiment loop, do not pause to ask user feedback: Use your best judgement for decision making, consult the optimization playbook and perf knobs catalog promptly, and think harder if stuck.