[Openmp-commits] [PATCH] D59319: [OpenMP][Offloading][1/3] A generic and simple target region interface

Thu Mar 14 13:51:01 PDT 2019

jdoerfert marked 2 inline comments as done.
jdoerfert added inline comments.

================
Comment at: openmp/libomptarget/deviceRTLs/common/target_region.h:27
+
+/// The target region _kernel_ interface for GPUs
+///
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> jdoerfert wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > jdoerfert wrote:
> > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > All exported functions are declared in the `interface.h` file. I don't think we need an extra interface file here
> > > > `interface.h`, or to be more precise for people that do not know, `deviceRTLs/nvptx/src/interface.h`, is nvptx specific. This file, `deviceRTLs/common/target_region.h`, is by design target agnostic and not placed _under_ the nvptx subfolder. If you are willing to move `interface.h` into a common space and remove the nvptx specific functions we can merge the two. Otherwise, I have strong reservations agains that and good reason not to do it.
> > > I see that currently it is written in Cuda. It means, it targets NVidia GPUs, at least at the moment. I'm fine to put this header file into the common directory, if you're sure that this is really target agnostic. But maybe just for a start we should put it to NVPTX directory? Later, when you or somebody else will add support for other GPUs and he/she will find out that these functions are really target agnostic, they can be moved into the common directory?
> > > I see that currently it is written in Cuda. It means, it targets NVidia GPUs, at least at the moment
> > 
> > How do you see that? (I hope we both talk about this file, correct?)
> > 
> > 
> > > But maybe just for a start we should put it to NVPTX directory?
> > 
> > Why? What is the benefit? If we want it to be agnostic, regardless of the current state, it should be developed _outside_ of the target specific directories.
> > 
> I'm not talking about this particular file, just like I said we can put it into `common` subdirectory. I'm talking about the implementation files. They all are written in Cuda, no?
> But it is not proved yet that this solution is target agnostic. Did you test it for AMD?
> I'm not talking about this particular file, just like I said we can put it into common subdirectory.

OK. It is (the only file in the common folder for now).

> I'm talking about the implementation files. They all are written in Cuda, no?

Yes, Cuda, and placed under the nvptx folder for that reason. That is what you want, correct?

> But it is not proved yet that this solution is target agnostic. Did you test it for AMD?

What do you mean by solution? I do not have a second implementation of the interface but nothing up to the implementation of the interface is target aware. By construction, this means it will work for anything we can implement the interface in. 

Why do you fight so hard against this? What exactly do you want to change here? Given the last comment, and assuming I understand you correctly, the files are all exactly where you want them to be. That the wording sometimes states "target agnostic" is a sign of intent, even if for some currently unknown reason it would not hold true.

================
Comment at: openmp/libomptarget/deviceRTLs/common/target_region.h:100
+///
+EXTERN int8_t __kmpc_target_region_kernel_init(bool UseSPMDMode,
+                                               bool RequiresOMPRuntime,
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> jdoerfert wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > jdoerfert wrote:
> > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > Better to use `ident_loc` for passing info about execution mode and full/lightweight runtime.
> > > > Could you please explain why you think that? Adding indirection through a structure does not really seem beneficial to me.
> > > Almost all function from libomp rely on `ident_loc`. The functions, which were added for NVPTX without this parameter had a lot of problems later and most of them were replaced with the functions with this parameter type. Plus, this parameter is used for OMPD/OMPT and it may be important for future OMPD/OMPT support.
> > > Almost all function from libomp rely on ident_loc.
> > 
> > If you look at the implementation of this interface for NVPTX you will see that the called functions do not take `ident_loc` values. When you create the calls from the existing NVPTX code generation in clang, the current code **does not use** `ident_loc` for similar functions, see:
> > `___kmpc_kernel_init(kmp_int32 thread_limit, int16_t RequiresOMPRuntime)`,
> > `__kmpc_kernel_deinit(int16_t IsOMPRuntimeInitialized)`,
> > `__kmpc_spmd_kernel_init(kmp_int32 thread_limit, int16_t RequiresOMPRuntime, int16_t RequiresDataSharing)`,
> > `__kmpc_kernel_parallel(void **outlined_function, int16_t IsOMPRuntimeInitialized)`,
> > ...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Plus, this parameter is used for OMPD/OMPT and it may be important for future OMPD/OMPT support.
> > 
> > If we at some point need to make the options permanent in an `ident_loc` we can simply pass an `ident_loc` and require it to be initialized by the call. Cluttering the user code with stores and indirection is exactly what I do want to avoid.
> 1. The new functions rely on `ident_loc`. We had to add those new functions because the old ones did not use it and it was bad design decision. Now we need to fix this. I suggest you do everything right from the very beginning rather than fixing this later by adding extra entry points to support OMPT/OMPD or something else, for example.
> 2. No, you cannot simply change the interface of the library to keep the compatibility with the previous versions of the compiler/library. You will need to add the new entries.  
Let's start this one again because I still haven't understood. Why do we need to populate the `ident_loc` again? What information has to be in there at which point? I want this to be clear because a lot of other "design decisions" of the existing code base are in my opinion not necessary and consequently missing here. That includes, for example, various global variables. If we have a description of the problem you try to solve with the `ident_loc` we might be able to find a way that cuts down on state.

Regarding the "compatibility", this is not a stable interface people can rely on. Whatever is committed in this first patch __is not__ set in stone. Also, we can _always_ add a `__kmpc_init_ident_loc(....)` function after the fact.

================
Comment at: openmp/libomptarget/deviceRTLs/nvptx/src/omp_data.cu:70
+////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
+__device__ __shared__ target_region_shared_buffer _target_region_shared_memory;
+
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> jdoerfert wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > It would be good to store it the global memory rather than in the shared to save th shared memory. Also, we already are using several shared memory buffers for different purposes, it would be good to merge them somehow to reduce pressure on shared memory.
> > I would have reused your buffer but it is for reasons unclear to me, not a byte-wise buffer but an array of `void *` and also used as such. Using it as a byte-wise buffer might cause problems or at least confusion. Changing it to a byte-wise buffer would be fine with me. I don't need a separate buffer but just one with the functionality implemented in this one.
> I don't know what `my` buffer are talking about. I'm just saying that we already using a lot of shared memory and adding another one shared memory buffer of ~150 bytes per team increases pressure on the shared memory. It would be good to reuse the existing buffers somehow. It was just a suggestion.
> I don't know what my buffer are talking about. 

Sorry, my bad. The one you see in the (last part of the) implementation below in the beginning of the shown lines of `openmp/libomptarget/deviceRTLs/nvptx/src/omptarget-nvptx.h`. It is called `omptarget_nvptx_SharedArgs` and it does (a subset of) what this new buffer does, providing space for shared variables in parallel regions.

> I'm just saying that we already using a lot of shared memory and adding another one shared memory buffer of ~150 bytes per team increases pressure on the shared memory. It would be good to reuse the existing buffers somehow. It was just a suggestion.

I understand and I agree. My comment explained why I didn't do that in the first place, hoping that you see the problem and agree we should rewrite the users of `omptarget_nvptx_SharedArgs` to use `target_region_shared_buffer`[1], thereby reducing the required shared memory.

[1] The name is subject to change! I don't care much.

================
Comment at: openmp/libomptarget/deviceRTLs/nvptx/src/target_region.cu:64
+
+/// Filter threads into masters and workers. If \p UseStateMachine is true,
+/// required workers will enter a state machine through and be trapped there.
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> jdoerfert wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > What is the criteria for `UseStateMachine`? Under what conditions it can be set to `true` and `false`? Also, what if have several parallel regions in non-SPMD kernel and `UseStateMachine` is `true`?
> > > What is the criteria for UseStateMachine? Under what conditions it can be set to true and false? 
> > 
> > `UseStateMachine` is an option exposed to the outer world through the `__kmpc_target_region_kernel_init` call. The semantics are explained here and in the declaration of `__kmpc_target_region_kernel_init`.
> > 
> > > Also, what if have several parallel regions in non-SPMD kernel and UseStateMachine is true?
> > 
> > I don't see the problem, I expect all kernels having threads in their own state machine and no interference between them. That is at least what should happen. Maybe I miss something. Do you see a problem?
> > 
> 1. I see its semantics, I'm asking when it must be set to `true` and when to `false`. Maybe I missed something, but currently, it is always set to `true` in the compiler patch. Do you really need it?
> 2. What if you have a single kernel with several consecutive parallel regions? Can you handle this?
> I see its semantics, I'm asking when it must be set to true and when to false. Maybe I missed something, but currently, it is always set to true in the compiler patch. Do you really need it?

Yes, because the LLVM optimizer pass [1] will change the value.

> What if you have a single kernel with several consecutive parallel regions? Can you handle this?

Yes. That works.

[1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D59331#C1385083NL563 (line 566-568 in OpenMPOpt.cpp)

================
Comment at: openmp/libomptarget/deviceRTLs/nvptx/src/target_region.cu:166
+      // Copy the shared and private variables into shared memory.
+      char *SVMemory = __kmpc_target_region_kernel_get_shared_memory();
+      char *PVMemory = __kmpc_target_region_kernel_get_private_memory();
----------------
ABataev wrote:
> Use `void *` also, better to keep the same coding style across the whole library
Done.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D59319/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D59319