On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:08:45 +0100
Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In context of reviewing Julian's "OpenACC reference count overhaul",
> I'm generally reviewing (also known as: trying to understand) the
> libgomp OpenMP 'target' "refcount"ing , and I noticed something
> strange (?):
>
> On 20
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:08:45PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > @@ -794,7 +807,7 @@ gomp_offload_image_to_device (struct gomp_device_descr
> > *devicep,
> >/* Insert host-target address mapping into splay tree. */
> >struct target_mem_desc *tgt = gomp_malloc (sizeof (*tgt));
> >t
Hi!
In context of reviewing Julian's "OpenACC reference count overhaul", I'm
generally reviewing (also known as: trying to understand) the libgomp
OpenMP 'target' "refcount"ing , and I noticed something strange (?):
On 2015-07-30T22:44:33+0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> make check-target-libgomp pass
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:44:33PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> libgomp/
> * libgomp.h (enum gomp_map_vars_kind): New.
> (gomp_map_vars): Change type of the argument from bool to enum
> gomp_map_vars_kind.
> * oacc-mem.c (acc_map_data, present_create_copy,
> gomp_acc_in
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:12:59 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:06:52PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > @@ -1241,6 +1245,62 @@ GOMP_target_update (int device, const void *unused,
> > size_t mapnum,
> >gomp_update (devicep, mapnum, hostaddrs, sizes, kinds, false);
> > }
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 05:40:15PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> Sure, but it's not possible to fully test data mapping without non-shared
> address space. I've created new check_effective_target, ok for
> gomp-4_1-branch?
>
>
> * testsuite/lib/libgomp.exp
> (check_effective_target_of
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:12:59 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> This test will fail on HSA, you don't assume just that it doesn't
> fallback to host, but also non-shared address space.
> I think it would be better to start with some check for non-shared address
> space, like:
> /* This test relies o
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:06:52PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> @@ -1241,6 +1245,62 @@ GOMP_target_update (int device, const void *unused,
> size_t mapnum,
>gomp_update (devicep, mapnum, hostaddrs, sizes, kinds, false);
> }
>
> +static void
> +gomp_exit_data (struct gomp_device_descr *device
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 22:42:10 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> As has been clarified on omp-lang, we actually shouldn't be mapping or
> unmapping the pointer and/or reference, only the array slice itself, except
> in target construct (and even for that it is changing from mapping to
> private + poi
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 09:45:30PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > What exactly do you have in mind here?
> >
> > void foo (int *p)
> > {
> > #pragma omp enter data (to:p[10])
> > ...
> > #pragma omp exit data (from:p[10])
> > }
> >
> > where the latter will only deallocate &p[0] ... &p[9], but not
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 19:25:09 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 06:34:25PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 00:06:58 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > > The patch is not ready though, I don't know how to unmap GOMP_MAP_POINTER
> > > vars.
> > > In gomp_unmap
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 06:34:25PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 00:06:58 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 18:10:44 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > The thing is whether it is actually a good idea to allocate the enter data
> > > allocated objects togethe
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 00:06:58 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 18:10:44 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > The thing is whether it is actually a good idea to allocate the enter data
> > allocated objects together.
> > In OpenMP 4.0, generally objects would be allocated and deallo
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 18:10:44 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The thing is whether it is actually a good idea to allocate the enter data
> allocated objects together.
> In OpenMP 4.0, generally objects would be allocated and deallocated at the
> same times, except for multiple host threads trying
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:42:01PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 14:57:02 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:19:30PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > > --- a/libgomp/target.c
> > > +++ b/libgomp/target.c
> > > @@ -580,10 +581,16 @@ gomp_unmap_vars (struct
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 14:57:02 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:19:30PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> > --- a/libgomp/target.c
> > +++ b/libgomp/target.c
> > @@ -580,10 +581,16 @@ gomp_unmap_vars (struct target_mem_desc *tgt, bool
> > do_copyfrom)
> >bool do_unmap =
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:19:30PM +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> --- a/libgomp/target.c
> +++ b/libgomp/target.c
> @@ -580,10 +581,16 @@ gomp_unmap_vars (struct target_mem_desc *tgt, bool
> do_copyfrom)
>bool do_unmap = false;
>if (k->refcount > 1)
> k->refcount--;
> - els
17 matches
Mail list logo
