Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • 14:29
    Martinfx commented #4429
  • 14:26
    Martinfx commented #4318
  • 14:23
    Martinfx commented #4318
  • 14:16
    Martinfx commented #4318
  • 12:34
    Martinfx commented #4318
  • 12:33
    Martinfx commented #4318
  • 12:17
    Martinfx opened #4429
  • 08:17
    SuTanTank closed #4387
  • 07:49
    timo-zeiss-research commented #4408
  • 07:34
    alexreinking review_request_removed #3947
  • 03:31
    benoitsteiner synchronize #4428
  • 01:06
    steven-johnson review_requested #4427
  • 00:37
    benoitsteiner opened #4428
  • 00:07
    steven-johnson commented #4426
  • 00:06
    steven-johnson review_requested #4427
  • 00:04
    steven-johnson opened #4427
  • 00:02

    steven-johnson on revert-4408-host_dirty_on_device_malloc

    Revert "Bugfix: Empty device bu… (compare)

  • Nov 21 23:48
    steven-johnson commented #4408
  • Nov 21 22:55
    steven-johnson opened #4426
  • Nov 21 22:55

    steven-johnson on srj-wasmlld

    Fix lld::wasm::link() call for … (compare)

Dillon Sharlet
@dsharletg
other than just pushing a commit to it of course
Andrew Adams
@abadams
Turns out never releasing semaphores is a leading cause of deadlock
Steven Johnson
@steven-johnson
"neither train shall move until the other one has passed"
Zalman Stern
@zvookin
The DMA device doesn't ever compute in a strict sense
The current design has the copies always be synchronous
In fact copies are always that way right? When the copy returns it is done.
When we extend lowering of async to something other than semaphores and threads, we will likely need to expose asynchronous copies, and perhaps an entire event model in general.
Andrew Adams
@abadams
Yeah, but even if I make them async and ignore the problems that introduces, we're on a single stream
Zalman Stern
@zvookin
Well that's sort of true for Hexagon DMA if there's one engine.
I.e. yes for a device, but since the device is modeling a piece of hardware that has that restriction anyway, probably....
Andrew Adams
@abadams
I was initially trying to overlap device compute with device<->host copies. In the cuda backend this needs a lot more work for anything like that to happen.
Zalman Stern
@zvookin
In order to have DMA going both directions one needs two devices and those will not be a single stream.
Andrew Adams
@abadams
That's all I meant
Zalman Stern
@zvookin
So I think we need to keep the current model, but we should consider introducing a new one that allows much more asynchrony.
Whether that is just async versions of the copy routines or a full event model I'm not sure
I'm not sure it makes much sense to consider until we are looking at a different way of lowering async
I.e. in the current model, synchronous copy is probably required anyway. The thread doing it would just wait immediately if it wasn't synchronous.
"Event model" likely amounts to exposing the semaphore abstraction and arranging for it to be signaled by the device support code somehow
Andrew Adams
@abadams
Overlapping CPU computation with device stuff works fine. All use of the device_api occurs on a single thread. All the CPU compute occurs on another thread.
That's what I'm targeting for now
Zalman Stern
@zvookin
"CPU" is not necessarily correct there. It can be a different device too.
That is the common case for Hexagon right?
Andrew Adams
@abadams
For the hexagon DMA work so far, "CPU" is hexagon, and "device" is the dma engine
Zalman Stern
@zvookin
Ok, but the Hexagon may be invoked via offload.
Andrew Adams
@abadams
But yeah, I think it would work to have cross-device stuff going on in parallel
All use of each device interface would be on a single distinct thread
Zalman Stern
@zvookin
yes
Andrew Adams
@abadams
and there's no cross-device-interface serialization I think
so it would just work
Zalman Stern
@zvookin
That is what I was highlighting.
The only issue I see with this design is that the overhead of the thread may be too high to use for very lightweight hardware synchronization mechanisms. Other than that, I don't see a lot of reason to do the customized lowering.
I need to make a couple more changes to the hexagon DMA
Will try to do so today.
The test only calls buffer_copy, which is mostly as it should be.
Dillon Sharlet
@dsharletg
So BTW regarding hexagon offloading, I've been thinking we simply punt on that for now
and only target standalone
anything that we get working on standalone can be made to work with offloading without solving any "hard" problems like async + storage folding, it just might involve a lot of plumbing and infrastructure
Steven Johnson
@steven-johnson
re: the windows buildbots, proposed fix is out there.
Zalman Stern
@zvookin
I'll have to consider the implications, but I think the current stuff just works if the DMA things are scheduled inside an offloaded thing.
Dillon Sharlet
@dsharletg
I think there might be some hiccups with the device interface
that will need to get plumbed over via offloading
and I don't think that will happen transparently right now
it might be easy to make it work though
Zalman Stern
@zvookin
yeah, that's small boogs territory.
I guess I'm expecting it will have to work with offload very early on to have a useful test.
Andrew Adams
@abadams
@dsharletg the host->device case also works, but there's no benefit for cuda because the version without async already manages to overlap the cpu compute and copies in a subtle way.
Confused me for a while.
CPU compute -> synchronous copy -> async kernel launch -> next batch of CPU compute (overlapped with GPU kernel launch) -> synchronous copy (stalls until kernel launch is done) ->
Wait, so I guess the CPU compute is hidden under the GPU compute
not the copy