<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
OpenCL 2.0 introduced the notion of memory scope in atomic
operations to global memory. These scopes are a hint to the
underlying platform to optimize how synchronization is achieved.
HSAIL also has a notion of memory scopes that is compatible with
OpenCL 2.0. Currently, the LLVM IR uses a binary value
(SingleThread/CrossThread) to represent synchronization scope on
atomic instructions. This makes it difficult to translate OpenCL 2.0
atomic operations to LLVM IR, and also to implement HSAIL memory
scopes in the proposed HSAIL backend for LLVM.<br>
<br>
We would like to enhance the representation of memory scopes in LLVM
IR to allow more values than just the current two. The intention of
this email is to invite comments before we start prototyping. Here's
what we have in mind:<br>
<ol>
<li>Update the synchronization scope field in atomic instructions
from a single bit to a wider field, say 32-bit unsigned integer.
</li>
<li>Retain the current default of zero as "system scope",
replacing the current "cross thread" scope.<br>
</li>
<li>All other values are target-defined.</li>
<li>The use of "single thread scope" is not clear. If it is
required in target-independent transforms, then it could be
encoded as just "1", or as "all ones" in the wider field. The
latter option is a bit weird, because most targets will have
very few scopes. But it is useful in case the next point is
included in LLVM IR.</li>
<li>Possibly add the following constraint on memory scopes: "The
scope represented by a larger value is nested inside (is a
proper subset of) the scope represented by a smaller value."
This would also imply that the value used for single-thread
scope must be the largest value used by the target.<br>
This constraint on "nesting" is easily satisfied by HSAIL (and
also OpenCL), where synchronization scopes increase from a
single work-item to the entire system. But it is conceivable
that other targets do not have this constraint. For example, a
platform may define synchronization scopes in terms of
overlapping sets instead of proper subsets. <br>
</li>
<li>The impact of this change is limited to increasing the number
of bits used to store synchronization scope. Future
optimizations on atomics may need to interpret scopes in
target-defined ways. When the synchronization scopes of two
atomic instructions do not match, these optimizations must query
the target for validity. <br>
</li>
</ol>
<b>Relation with SPIR: </b>SPIR defines an enumeration for memory
scopes, but it does not support LLVM atomic instructions. So memory
scopes in SPIR are independent of the representation finally chosen
in LLVM IR. A compiler that translates SPIR to native LLVM IR will
have to translate memory scopes wherever appropriate. <br>
<br>
Sameer.<br>
</body>
</html>