Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Synchronization (RE: [compute] review)
From: Thomas M (firespot71_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-31 12:11:12

On 31/12/2014 12:51, Thomas M wrote:
> Since there's a range of such interactions imaginable, with
> different preconditions, equally the tools offered shall provide some
> diversity. I am against forcing users to a single but clumpsy tool (an
> all-powered event-level guarantee) if the preconditions in a given
> application can be much more relaxed and something higher-leveled does
> the job as well.

Matt, here's an example when IMHO a plain event-level guarantee as only
tool won't do it:

for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
   cq.enqueue_write_buffer_async(devmem[i], 0, size[i], host_ptr[i]);

If there's a true guarantee around the cq.enqueue_write_buffer_async:

for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
guar(cq.enqueue_write_buffer_async(devmem[i], 0, size[i], host_ptr[i]));

then the asynchronous nature is totally lost (it blocks on every iteration).

If the guarantee can be "moved outside of the loop" to avoid the
blocking, something like:

boost::compute::guarantee_list guarList;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
0, size[i], host_ptr[i]));

then it's not a guarantee in your sense any more, because I can
obviously also move it out to any improper scope loosing the protection.

The way to go for is a higher-level protection (e.g. wait on a wait_list
/ command_queue); thus the asynchronous copy nature is kept at the
user's responsibility to place the protection at an "appropriate" scope.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at