Why not [RSC] but [C/64, R, S, 64] in kloop of conv implicit gemm?

[liuqi123123]

suppose R=2, S=2, C=128, ThreadBlockShape=<128,128,64>.
When main loop in implicit GEMM_K, the memory access sequence in cutlass will be r=0,s=0,c=0-63, r=0,s=1,c=0-63, r=1,s=0,c=0-63, r=1,s=1,c=0-63, r=0,s=0,c=63-127, r=0,s=1,c=63-127, r=1,s=0,c=63-127, r=1,s=1,c=63-127.
But why not r=0,s=0,c=0-63, r=0,s=0,c=63-127, r=0,s=1,c=0-63, r=0,s=1,c=63-127 r=1,s=0,c=0-63, r=1,s=0,c=63-127, r=1,s=1,c=0-63, r=1,s=1,c=63-127, Isn't it a better memory access strategy to access C first?

[thakkarV]

this is going to get fixed in 3.6

[liuqi123123]

I have try this, and find why memory accsess in order of S->R->C: because l1 cache will hit much more in memory access in activation!

[github-actions]

This issue has been labeled inactive-30d due to no recent activity in the past 30 days. Please close this issue if no further response or action is needed. Otherwise, please respond with a comment indicating any updates or changes to the original issue and/or confirm this issue still needs to be addressed. This issue will be labeled inactive-90d if there is no activity in the next 60 days.

[github-actions]

This issue has been labeled inactive-90d due to no recent activity in the past 90 days. Please close this issue if no further response or action is needed. Otherwise, please respond with a comment indicating any updates or changes to the original issue and/or confirm this issue still needs to be addressed.