[SYCL] add an e2e test that passes for liboffload with L0#21584
[SYCL] add an e2e test that passes for liboffload with L0#21584EuphoricThinking wants to merge 1 commit intointel:syclfrom
Conversation
EuphoricThinking
force-pushed
the
liboffload_lit_tests_pr
branch
from
2ac3b22 to
187486d
Compare
EuphoricThinking
force-pushed
the
liboffload_lit_tests_pr
branch
9 times, most recently
from
abfe1b4 to
3c7b065
Compare
| if re.match(r"\[offload:.*", line) and not is_offload_preferred_backend_set: | ||
| if re.match(".*Level[ _]Zero.*", line, re.IGNORECASE): | ||
| offload_assigned_backend = config.backend_to_target["level_zero"] | ||
| is_offload_preferred_backend_set = True | ||
| elif re.match(".*nvidia.*", line, re.IGNORECASE): | ||
| offload_assigned_backend = config.backend_to_target["cuda"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can just assign to config.backend_to_target["offload"] directly and get rid of offload_assigned_backend.
Does the logic here depends on the order of devices/backends in sycl-ls output? I.e. if CUDA comes after L0 in the sycl-ls output, then it will be picked as offload backend. Is this the desired behavior?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've been afraid I might have overcomplicated, so I'm glad that you point this out.
L0 backend is preferred, but the outcome is not dependent on the order of the devices listed by sycl-ls.
config.backend_to_target["offload"] might be set to target-nvidia if NVIDIA's device is the first one encountered, but is_offload_preferred_backend_set is not set, therefore the condition is still entered in the next iterations. However, when L0 is found, is_offload_preferred_backend_set is set to true, which prevents from entering the condition in the following iterations. If we start with L0 instead, is_offload_preferred_backend_set would be set before we could find NVIDIA - we would not reassign the preferred backend.
I wanted to prevent setting config.backend_to_target["offload"] to "", which was the case with using only OFFLOAD_BUILD_TARGET, but I am not sure whether preferring L0 over other devices is a strategy which is aligned with our goals. On the other hand, we focus on supporting L0 devices. One thing that concerns me is missing backends - for example, HIP is not supported by offload at this moment. Can we encounter only AMD device in our tests?
| // Allocate shared memory bound to the device and context associated to the | ||
| // queue Replacing malloc_shared with malloc_host would yield a correct | ||
| // program that allocated device-visible memory on the host. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NIT: Comment about malloc_host seems excessive and can be removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed c:
EuphoricThinking
force-pushed
the
liboffload_lit_tests_pr
branch
from
3c7b065 to
0d2d8dc
Compare
2 participants
The liboffload phase 0 program is added as one of SYCL e2e tests. Moreover, lit configuration files are modified so that the liboffload backend is determined according to
sycl-lsoutput, while the backend specified by the user preserves its precedence. When choosing between devices listed bysycl-ls, the Level Zero backend is preferred.