On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 20:22 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 17:07 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> > > Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 17:24 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> > > > > Serge Martin <edb+m...@sigluy.net> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This fix getting the size of a struct arg. vec3 types still
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > ok.
> > > > > > Only buit-in args need to have power of two alignment,
> > > > > > getTypeAllocSize
> > > > > > reports the correct size.
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/llvm/invocation.cpp | 3
> > > > > > ++-
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > a/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/llvm/invocation.cpp
> > > > > > b/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/llvm/invocation.cpp
> > > > > > index 03487d6..9af51539 100644
> > > > > > --- a/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/llvm/invocation.cpp
> > > > > > +++ b/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/llvm/invocation.cpp
> > > > > > @@ -472,7 +472,8 @@ namespace {
> > > > > > // aligned to the next larger power of two". We
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > // alignment for three element vectors, which
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > // non-power-of-2 store size.
> > > > > > - const unsigned arg_api_size =
> > > > > > util_next_power_of_two(arg_store_size);
> > > > > > + const unsigned arg_api_size = arg_type-
> > > > > > >isStructTy()
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > > + arg_store_size :
> > > > > > util_next_power_of_two(arg_store_size);
> > > > > >
> > > > > Hm... Isn't this still going to be broken if you pass a
> > > > > struct
> > > > > argument
> > > > > to a kernel function and the alignment of any of the struct
> > > > > members
> > > > > doesn't match the target-specific data layout? Not sure we
> > > > > can
> > > > > fix
> > > > > this
> > > > > sensibly without requiring the target's data layout to match
> > > > > the
> > > > > CL
> > > > > API
> > > > > exactly. Any suggestions Tom?
> > > >
> > > > according to 6.7.2.1 compilers can arbitrarily insert padding
> > > > between
> > > > struct members (except at the beginning).
> > >
> > > What spec version are you looking at? My CL spec doesn't have
> > > any
> > > section labeled 6.7.2.1.
> >
> > c99 specs, I did not find anything specific for CLC (it might be
> > that I
> > just need to look harder). CLC 2.0 adds additional constraint that
> > you
> > can't use address space qualifiers.
> >
>
> I'd expect that whatever the CL spec says regarding the memory layout
> of
> CLC types (e.g. section 6.1.5 which specifies the usual alignment
> rules
> for CL types and section 6.11.1 and 6.11.3 which specify various
> variable and type declaration attributes giving finer control over
> the
> alignment of variable and struct member declarations) fully overrides
> the C99 spec.
Right, even if we consider that none of the C99 6.7.2.1 apply (and at
least CL2.0 6.5.6 does not make it sound so), it only gives us one
side, we can check that the CLC struct layout follows what we would
expect. We don't have means to check and enforce that the host side
struct layout is compatible.
>
> > >
> > > > Even if size/alignment of individual members match CL API
> > > > exactly,
> > > > there's no guarantee that the structure layout/size will be the
> > > > same.
> > > >
> > > How can you exchange structured data with a CL kernel then,
> > > assuming
> > > that the layout of structure types in memory is fully unspecified
> > > as
> > > you
> > > say?
> >
> > that is my point. My understanding is that it relies on a silent
> > assumption that both CLC and the host compiler will create the same
> > structure layout given the same structure elements.
> >
> > big endian host can create:
> > struct foo {
> > cl_int a;
> > // 16 bit padding;
> > cl_short b;
> > cl_int c;
> > };
>
> I don't think this is a valid representation of the structure
> according
> to CL rules, my understanding is if your host happens to lay out
> structure fields in this way you have to either marshal things
> manually
> or use compiler-specific attributes to get the host compiler to put
> things at the right location (according to CL API rules). I believe
> that Khronos' cl_platform.h specifies alignment attributes in the
> cl_*
> host-side typedefs specifically for this purpose.
maybe I'm missing something, but what rule does it break? shorts are by
default 2 byte aligned, ints are 4 byte aligned, they cannot be
reordered, so there needs to be a 2 byte hole somewhere. is there a
rule that requires members to be at the nearest aligned location?
At least on the host side the compiler can insert stuff like '60 bytes
padding to avoid false sharing'. If the application programmer needs to
use specific attributes to get compatible layout we have no way to
check that, other than checking the provided size.
what I'm trying to says is; does it make sense to have stricter checks
on device side if we can't enforce them on the host side?
Jan
>
> > while little endian device could create:
> > struct foo {
> > int a;
> > short b;
> > // 16 bit padding
> > int c;
> > };
> >
> > If cl_short/short alignment is 2bytes, the above structures and all
> > the
> > members have the same size/alignment, yet are not compatible.
> >
> > Am I missing something that would prevent the above?
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > >
> > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > llvm::Type *target_type = arg_type->isIntegerTy()
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > > TD.getSmallestLegalIntType(mod-
> > > > > > >getContext(),
> > > > > > arg_store_size * 8)
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.5.5
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu>
> > --
> >
> > Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu>
--
Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
