-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 788
[SYCL][Docs] Add kernel enqueue functions for kernel and properties #14707
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
steffenlarsen
wants to merge
3
commits into
intel:sycl
from
steffenlarsen:steffen/new_kernel_prop_enqueue_funcs
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also wonder if we should invest effort into extending these forms of
single_task
andparallel_for
. The recently implemented sycl_ext_oneapi_enqueue_functions has a cleaner separation between launch properties vs. kernel properties.I think our longer term strategy may be to drop the forms of
single_task
andparallel_for
in sycl_ext_oneapi_kernel_properties and use the ones in sycl_ext_oneapi_enqueue_functions instead.@Pennycook what were your thoughts on these two extension regarding ways of specifying kernel properties?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with this.
sycl_ext_oneapi_kernel_properties was essentially our first attempt at defining a kernel launch interface that accepted properties. The sycl_ext_oneapi_enqueue_functions design addresses a lot of feedback we received from users and other implementers, and it's much more aligned with where we expect future versions of SYCL to go.
My preference would be that we move to sycl_ext_oneapi_enqueue_functions as soon as possible, and deprecate these property overloads. If there's a short-term need to expose these overloads with minimal effort, I'm not opposed, but we should figure out an implementation plan for the new extension.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think sycl_ext_oneapi_enqueue_functions is already implemented.
@steffenlarsen I'm not sure who is asking for this change. Can we ask them to use sycl_ext_oneapi_enqueue_functions instead of making the changes in this PR?