[SYCL][Graph] Fix barrier transitive queue recording (#15601)

It has been discovered that when a graph event is passed as a dependency
to a barrier operation on another in-order queue. This does not trigger
the queue to record the operation as it should. Fix this with regression
test.

Author: EwanC

sycl/source/queue.cpp

@@ -274,7 +274,8 @@ event queue::ext_oneapi_submit_barrier(const std::vector<event> &WaitList,
   bool AllEventsEmptyOrNop = std::all_of(
       begin(WaitList), end(WaitList), [&](const event &Event) -> bool {
         auto EventImpl = detail::getSyclObjImpl(Event);
-        return EventImpl->isDefaultConstructed() || EventImpl->isNOP();
+        return (EventImpl->isDefaultConstructed() || EventImpl->isNOP()) &&
+               !EventImpl->getCommandGraph();
       });
   if (is_in_order() && !impl->getCommandGraph() && !impl->MDiscardEvents &&
       !impl->MIsProfilingEnabled && AllEventsEmptyOrNop) {

sycl/test-e2e/Graph/RecordReplay/transitive_queue_barrier.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+// RUN: %{build} -o %t.out
+// RUN: %{run} %t.out
+// Extra run to check for leaks in Level Zero using UR_L0_LEAKS_DEBUG
+// RUN: %if level_zero %{env SYCL_PI_LEVEL_ZERO_USE_IMMEDIATE_COMMANDLISTS=0 %{l0_leak_check} %{run} %t.out 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --implicit-check-not=LEAK %}
+// Extra run to check for immediate-command-list in Level Zero
+// RUN: %if level_zero %{env SYCL_PI_LEVEL_ZERO_USE_IMMEDIATE_COMMANDLISTS=1 %{l0_leak_check} %{run} %t.out 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --implicit-check-not=LEAK %}
+
+// Regression test for using transitive queue recording when a graph
+// event is passed as a dependency to a barrier operation in a different
+// in-order queue.
+
+#include "../graph_common.hpp"
+#include <sycl/properties/all_properties.hpp>
+
+int main() {
+  using T = int;
+
+  device Dev;
+  context Ctx{Dev};
+
+  property_list InOrderProp = {property::queue::in_order{}};
+  queue Q1{Ctx, Dev, InOrderProp};
+  queue Q2{Ctx, Dev, InOrderProp};
+
+  const exp_ext::queue_state Recording = exp_ext::queue_state::recording;
+  const exp_ext::queue_state Executing = exp_ext::queue_state::executing;
+
+  auto assertQueueState = [&](exp_ext::queue_state ExpectedQ1,
+                              exp_ext::queue_state ExpectedQ2) {
+    assert(Q1.ext_oneapi_get_state() == ExpectedQ1);
+    assert(Q2.ext_oneapi_get_state() == ExpectedQ2);
+  };
+
+  T *PtrA = malloc_device<T>(Size, Q1);
+  T *PtrB = malloc_device<T>(Size, Q1);
+  T *PtrC = malloc_device<T>(Size, Q1);
+
+  exp_ext::command_graph Graph{Q1.get_context(), Q1.get_device()};
+
+  Graph.begin_recording(Q1);
+  assertQueueState(Recording, Executing);
+
+  T PatternA = 42;
+  auto EventA =
+      Q1.submit([&](handler &CGH) { CGH.fill(PtrA, PatternA, Size); });
+  assertQueueState(Recording, Executing);
+
+  T PatternB = 0xA;
+  auto EventB = Q1.fill(PtrB, PatternB, Size);
+  assertQueueState(Recording, Executing);
+
+  auto Barrier1 = Q1.ext_oneapi_submit_barrier();
+  assertQueueState(Recording, Executing);
+
+  // Depends on Q1 barrier, should put Q2 in recording state
+  auto Barrier = Q2.ext_oneapi_submit_barrier({Barrier1});
+  assertQueueState(Recording, Recording);
+
+  // Q2 is now in recording state
+  auto EventC = Q2.submit([&](handler &CGH) {
+    CGH.parallel_for(range<1>(Size),
+                     [=](item<1> Id) { PtrC[Id] = PtrA[Id] + PtrB[Id]; });
+  });
+  assertQueueState(Recording, Recording);
+
+  Graph.end_recording();
+  assertQueueState(Executing, Executing);
+
+  auto GraphExec = Graph.finalize();
+
+  Q1.submit([&](handler &CGH) { CGH.ext_oneapi_graph(GraphExec); });
+  Q1.wait_and_throw();
+
+  std::vector<T> DataA(Size), DataB(Size), DataC(Size);
+  Q1.copy(PtrA, DataA.data(), Size);
+  Q1.copy(PtrB, DataB.data(), Size);
+  Q1.copy(PtrC, DataC.data(), Size);
+  Q1.wait_and_throw();
+
+  for (size_t i = 0; i < Size; i++) {
+    assert(check_value(i, PatternA, DataA[i], "DataA"));
+    assert(check_value(i, PatternB, DataB[i], "DataB"));
+    assert(check_value(i, (PatternA + PatternB), DataC[i], "DataC"));
+  }
+
+  return 0;
+}