173 implement device grouped gemm fixed nk for rdna4

[bidlekm]

Proposed changes

Please describe the motivation behind the pull request, whether it enables a new feature or fixes a bug. If there are associated pull requests or issues, please link them to the pull request.

Checklist

Please put an x into the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're not sure, please don't hesitate to ask.

• I have added tests relevant to the introduced functionality, and the unit tests are passing locally
• I have added the test to REGRESSION_TESTS list defined at the top of CMakeLists.txt in tests/CMakeLists.txt, IF the test takes more than 30 seconds to run.
• I have added inline documentation which enables the maintainers with understanding the motivation
• I have removed the stale documentation which is no longer relevant after this pull request
• (If this change is user-facing) I have added release notes which provide the end users with a brief summary of the improvement from this pull request
• I have run clang-format on all changed files
• Any dependent changes have been merged

Discussion

If this is a relatively large or complex change, feel free to start a discussion by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered

[zsotakal]

Looks good! A few minor things, mostly related to code quality.

[zsotakal]

I couldn't find this tail number logic anywhere in the existing code. Also there are seemingly related commented out sections below. Can you explain a bit what was the motivation behind it?

[bidlekm]

I couldnt find any logic either, i wanted to observe its functioning this way

[chris-tsiaousis-hpc]

I can see this comes from the XDL variant, but this line serves no purpose other than (in the best case) annoy the reader or (in the worst case) make them wonder the reason behind it and lose time on it.

[bidlekm]

it was useful for me to locate the struct's variables when i was quickly scrolling through the code. but if you think it is counterproductive to have it there in general, i could remove it.

[chris-tsiaousis-hpc]

This function call may throw. What happens if it does? Should you maybe pass the fail_if_no_supported_instances as an argument and early return without throwing? Or at least use a try-catch block here?

[bidlekm]

fail_if_no_supported_instances is used for modifying the return value of the function if certain conditions are met , the preexisting XDL implementation did not have that so introducing it now would result in an interface breaking change for an already existing functionality. The original profiler's throws are not handled here. Based on that fact, the error handling responsibility is elsewhere and introducing it here could result in hiding some config errors and changing the test behaviour

[chris-tsiaousis-hpc]

Added some comments you might want to address. Great work overall! :)

[ammallya]

Imported to ROCm/rocm-libraries