On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 09:22:51AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> This patch updates the OMP_PLACES description for the recent
> OpenMP 5.1 changes.
>
> OK?
>
> I actually wonder when/whether the spec reference
> should be updated to OpenMP 5.1 or an additional
> reference to it should be added.
>
> Tobias
> -----------------
> Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
> München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
> Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht
> München, HRB 106955
> libgomp.texi: Update OMP_PLACES
>
> libgomp/ChangeLog:
>
> * libgomp.texi (OMP_PLACES): Extend description for OMP 5.1 changes.
>
> diff --git a/libgomp/libgomp.texi b/libgomp/libgomp.texi
> index e9fa8ba0bf7..58d63c50935 100644
> --- a/libgomp/libgomp.texi
> +++ b/libgomp/libgomp.texi
> @@ -2031,18 +2031,22 @@ When undefined, @env{OMP_PROC_BIND} defaults to
> @code{TRUE} when
> @table @asis
> @item @emph{Description}:
> The thread placement can be either specified using an abstract name or by an
> -explicit list of the places. The abstract names @code{threads}, @code{cores}
> -and @code{sockets} can be optionally followed by a positive number in
> -parentheses, which denotes the how many places shall be created. With
> -@code{threads} each place corresponds to a single hardware thread;
> @code{cores}
> -to a single core with the corresponding number of hardware threads; and with
> -@code{sockets} the place corresponds to a single socket. The resulting
> -placement can be shown by setting the @env{OMP_DISPLAY_ENV} environment
> -variable.
> +explicit list of the places. The abstract names @code{threads},
> @code{cores},
> +@code{sockets}, @code{ll_caches} and @code{numa_domains} can be optionally
> +followed by a positive number in parentheses, which denotes the how many
> places
> +shall be created. With @code{threads} each place corresponds to a single
> +hardware thread; @code{cores} to a single core with the corresponding number
> of
> +hardware threads; with @code{sockets} the place corresponds to a single
> +socket; with @code{ll_caches} to a set of cores that shares the last level
> +cache on the device; and @code{numa_domains} to a set of cores for which
> their
> +closest memory on the device is the same meory and at a similar distance from
> +the cores. The resulting placement can be shown by setting the
> +@env{OMP_DISPLAY_ENV} environment variable.
>
> Alternatively, the placement can be specified explicitly as comma-separated
> -list of places. A place is specified by set of nonnegative numbers in curly
> -braces, denoting the denoting the hardware threads. The hardware threads
> +list of places. A place is specified by a single nonnegative number or
> +by a set of nonnegative numbers in curly braces, denoting the denoting
> +the hardware threads. The hardware threads
> belonging to a place can either be specified as comma-separated list of
> nonnegative thread numbers or using an interval. Multiple places can also be
> either specified by a comma-separated list of places or by an interval. To
The first paragraph looks good, but I think the latter change only adds to
confusion that the following text already has.
At least I'd say by a single nonnegative number which is treated as { number }
or ...
The confusion I see is that for both the placement list and place level the
wording first talks about comma-separated list of ..., and then later says
it can be specified either using that or by using an interval.
While actually it is always comma-separated list of ... or ... intervals,
one can mix the intervals with just mere places/numbers etc.
And there is no mention of ! and that the ! form can't use intervals.
Do you think you could try to reword it so that already in the first
sentence it shows all the 3 options ..., ... interval, !...
(where ... would be place or non-negative number)
or should I?
There is also "after after" in the paragraph.
Jakub
