Skip to content

Unable to optimize SDXL model pipeline on Amuse App - #5198

Closed
tamahedi wants to merge 1 commit into
developfrom
fix/is-module-fusible-null-check
Closed

Unable to optimize SDXL model pipeline on Amuse App#5198
tamahedi wants to merge 1 commit into
developfrom
fix/is-module-fusible-null-check

Conversation

@tamahedi

@tamahedi tamahedi commented Aug 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Motivation

MIGraphX crashes with ACCESS_VIOLATION (0xC0000005) during SDXL Unet optimization on gfx1201/Navi48. is_module_fusible() calls solution.if_string() which returns nullptr when no tuning entry exists for the target architecture, and the result is dereferenced without a null check. This blocks all MIGraphX inference on untuned GPU targets.

Technical Details

In src/targets/gpu/mlir.cpp, is_module_fusible() assumes solution.if_string() always returns a valid pointer. On GPUs without tuning data (gfx1201), the solution value is not a string type (shows null), so if_string() returns nullptr. The subsequent dereference causes a null pointer access violation in migraphx_gpu!is_module_fusible.

Changelog Category

Add a CHANGELOG.md entry for any option other than Not Applicable

    • Added: New functionality.
    • Changed: Changes to existing functionality.
    • Removed: Functionality or support that has been removed. (Compared to a previous release)
    • Optimized: Component performance that has been optimized or improved.
    • Resolved Issues: Known issues from a previous version that have been resolved.
    • Not Applicable: This PR is not to be included in the changelog.

Follow the LLVM AI Tool Use Policy for contributions using AI.

…ution.if_string() returns nullptr when no tuning data exists for the target GPU (e.g. gfx1201).
@tamahedi
tamahedi requested a review from causten as a code owner August 27, 2026 14:23
@Zhaeong
Zhaeong requested a review from pfultz2 August 27, 2026 15:25
@pfultz2

pfultz2 commented Aug 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Can a verify test be added that reproduces this issue?

@tamahedi

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I tried out this PR #5208 which got merged to our branch where we build from and the issue was resolved. For now we don't need this but if for some reason it didn't work out I'll reopen it.

@tamahedi tamahedi closed this Aug 28, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants