Compiler-Runtime Mapping: Inputs and Outputs

Inputs and outputs contract

Inputs and Outputs for Compiler-Runtime Mapping is anchored on Compile-time mapping accuracy versus runtime adaptation gain for changing input shapes.. Convert measurements into mechanism-backed decisions with clear owner accountability.

INPUTS
  - workload profile and SLA target
  - model precision and quality thresholds
  - compiler/runtime/firmware metadata
  - hardware operating envelope assumptions

OUTPUTS
  - evidence-backed bottleneck classification
  - owner-signed mitigation proposal
  - validation matrix with rollback triggers
  - release recommendation

Ownership split

OWNERSHIP LAYERS - Compiler-Runtime Mapping

+----------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Team                 | Primary responsibility         | Closure artifact               |
+----------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| compiler lead | mechanism and architecture intent| design rationale + tradeoffs   |
| runtime lead | mapping, runtime, and execution   | profile traces + bottleneck map|
| observability engineer | correctness, risk, and signoff    | test report + closure memo     |
+----------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+

AI accelerator deep dive

Scheduling quality decides whether architecture headroom reaches product throughput.

Concept diagram

SCHEDULING PIPELINE

compile plan -> runtime queue -> core placement -> completion and tail behavior

Metric graph

TAIL-LATENCY DRIVERS

queueing delay      ███████
core imbalance      █████
mapping fallback    ████

Metrics and artifacts to collect

• queue wait profile

• batch policy impact

• core-level fairness

• operator fusion effect

Mini case study

Aggressive fusion reduced launch overhead but increased memory bursts that worsened p95 latency.

Debug branches

• Inspect tail first, not average

• Check fairness across streams

• Validate fusion against memory constraints

Senior review question

Ask: which first-principles bottleneck class explains the symptom, and what artifact proves it reproducibly?

Key takeaways

• Tie every accelerator claim to a reproducible workload slice and one primary metric trend.

• Prefer bounded fixes with clear owner and rollback boundary over broad tuning bundles.

Common pitfalls

• Optimizing synthetic kernels without production-shape validation.

• Reading average latency while ignoring p95 and p99 behavior.

• Declaring sparse or precision wins without fallback and quality evidence.

Handoff explanation

Inputs should include workload profile, model revision, compiler/runtime versions, and platform power mode.

Outputs must include actionable interpretation of Compile-time mapping accuracy versus runtime adaptation gain for changing input shapes., required artifacts (Closed-loop mapping report combining offline compile profiles with runtime telemetry and retuning actions.), owner, and validation scope.

The ideal handoff packet is reproducible: fixed seeds, explicit baseline, and rejected alternatives.