Skip to content

[SYCL][USM] Initial commit of flattening for kernel submission on queue #911

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

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Dec 19, 2019

Conversation

jbrodman
Copy link
Contributor

@jbrodman jbrodman commented Dec 5, 2019

Add utility methods to flatten kernel submission to 1 lambda when using USM.

Events for depends_on are passed as an extra function arg.

Signed-off-by: James Brodman [email protected]

@jbrodman jbrodman requested a review from Pennycook December 5, 2019 22:20
Pennycook
Pennycook previously approved these changes Dec 6, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@Pennycook Pennycook left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good to me, but I do have a comment.

Currently the events vector is the last argument before the kernel functor in all cases. We should think about where it would go once we introduce reductions -- should the events vector still be the last argument before the functor, or should it be the last argument before the reductions?

More generally we might want to spend some time coming up with rules for the ordering of parameters to parallel_for, to ensure we're being consistent and that code remains easy to read.

Signed-off-by: James Brodman <[email protected]>
Pennycook
Pennycook previously approved these changes Dec 16, 2019
@jbrodman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Are we good to merge? @bader

@bader
Copy link
Contributor

bader commented Dec 17, 2019

Are we good to merge?

GitHub does not allow merging - "At least 1 approving review is required".

@Pennycook, please, review the latest version.

Pennycook
Pennycook previously approved these changes Dec 17, 2019
@jbrodman
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bader Ping.

@bader
Copy link
Contributor

bader commented Dec 18, 2019

Please, resolve @romanovvlad comment.
Is there any dependency between #911 and #937?

Signed-off-by: James Brodman <[email protected]>
@jbrodman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Please, resolve @romanovvlad comment.
Is there any dependency between #911 and #937?

No, there is no dependency.

@bader bader merged commit c5318c5 into intel:sycl Dec 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants