Add support for direct store in epilogue and padding support for wave transfer without transpose

[EnricoDeg]

Proposed changes

Summary:

• Add support for direct store in epilogue instead of cshuffle (performance improvement for small K problems)
• Add padding support for wave transfer without transpose
• Add wave transfer with interleaved layout to support direct store
• Enable new functionalities on GEMMs
• Add optional new functionality support for grouped convolution fwd
• Add fast instances for grouped convolution fwd with new functionalities (performance improvements)

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

[kabrahamAMD]

LGTM, good work

[kabrahamAMD]

Update comment (or remove, as it provides no additional information to the error message)

[krithalith]

It seems like GemmSpec default is no longer a hard requirement for using WaveTransfer, but only when A B layouts are not row column respectively? If so update comment?

[krithalith]

typos: lease, toral

[krithalith]

LGTM, had some small notes and I have a few questions:

• Has conv fwd performance with wavetransfer been benchmarked?
• Has wavetransfer / directstore been benchmarked in general?
• If no to the above two questions, should we make a new issue for this?
• Why do we only have wavetransfer instances for grouped conv fwd vanilla 2D?
• Where did the vanilla fwd 2d instances come from?

[krithalith]

LGTM, had some small notes and I have a few questions:

* Has conv fwd performance with wavetransfer been benchmarked?

* Has wavetransfer / directstore been benchmarked in general?

* If no to the above two questions, should we make a new issue for this?

* Why do we only have wavetransfer instances for grouped conv fwd vanilla 2D?

* Where did the vanilla fwd 2d instances come from?

Discussed offline. Basically benchmarks have been performed and wavetransfer did seem to be a decent bit better for 2D. No significant improvement for 3D so no instances added. We want to look into more automated benchmarks later.