[ESIMD] Refactor esimd intrinsic mapping to BE intrinsics. #4720
Conversation
kbobrovs
requested review from
kychendev,
sndmitriev and
v-klochkov
as code owners
kbobrovs
force-pushed
the
fix_intrin_names
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c3aaa91 to
cf61023
Compare
kbobrovs
changed the title
This patch
- makes names and parameter lists of __esimd* intrinsics match their
@llvm.genx counterparts. The benefits are:
* this removes the extra logical translation layer between __esimd* and
@llvm.genx thus simplifying overall user-level esimd intrinsic translation
* allows to reuse lots of functionality between SLM and surface memory
accesses
- moves some of the translations and argument setting (like accessor field to
surface index, setting scale) from LowerESIMD.cpp to the ESIMD headers, which
simplifies code base.
- for all memory intrinsics moves host and device implementations to the same
intrinsic function prototype separating them via __SYCL_DEVICE_ONLY__ macro
thus avoiding duplication of the prototypes
- removes certain redundant __esimd* intrinsics, such as SLM memory accesses
(which are normal surface accesses with special surface index 254), and
__esimd_reduced_fmax,... which have the same functionality as usual fmax,...
This is also a preparatory step for fixing SLM memory accesses (revising vector
lengths, element types restirictions)
Signed-off-by: Konstantin S Bobrovsky <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Konstantin S Bobrovsky <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Konstantin S Bobrovsky <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Konstantin S Bobrovsky <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Konstantin S Bobrovsky <[email protected]>
kbobrovs
force-pushed
the
fix_intrin_names
branch
from
8d51cac to
abf8a6a
Compare
|
@vladimirlaz, @bader - for some reason buildbot/sycl-ubu-x64-pr testing can't proceed. Can you please take a look? |
|
@kbobrovs, please, contact tools team for the issues with Buildbot/Jenkins CI testing. |
| template <typename AccessorTy> | ||
| ESIMD_INLINE ESIMD_NODEBUG SurfaceIndex get_surface_index(AccessorTy acc) { | ||
| #ifdef __SYCL_DEVICE_ONLY__ | ||
| if constexpr (std::is_same_v<detail::LocalAccessorMarker, AccessorTy>) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While trying to revise memory_intrin.hpp (#4748) for ESIMD_EMU support, I cannot find out how SLM_BTI value can be passed to SLM feature implementation for ESIMD_EMU support (host mode currently). Am I missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SLM_BTI can be passed to __esimd* memory intrinsics w/o problems.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
HOW can SLM_BTI be passed to SLM intrinsic implementations for host mode? The only return detail::SLM_BTI line is enclosed by #ifdef __SYCL_DEVICE_ONLY - line 52 of this file.
And, in line 66 of this file, the wrapping macro is dummy one for host mode compilation. This means
const auto si = __ESIMD_GET_SURF_HANDLE(detail::LocalAccessorMarker()); at line 793 becomes
const auto si = detail::LocalAccessorMarker(); for host mode.
This patch
@llvm.genx counterparts. The benefits are:
@llvm.genx thus simplifying overall user-level esimd intrinsic translation
accesses
surface index, setting scale) from LowerESIMD.cpp to the ESIMD headers, which
simplifies code base.
intrinsic function prototype separating them via SYCL_DEVICE_ONLY macro
thus avoiding duplication of the prototypes
(which are normal surface accesses with special surface index 254), and
__esimd_reduced_fmax,... which have the same functionality as usual fmax,...
This is also a preparatory step for fixing SLM memory accesses (revising vector
lengths, element types restirictions)
Signed-off-by: Konstantin S Bobrovsky [email protected]