Add amd gpgpu tests (New)

[pedro-avalos]

Description

• Added a wrapper for ROCm Validation suite that checks the result of the tests
• Added AMD GPGPU test jobs using ROCm Validation Suite

Resolved issues

Addresses CHECKBOX-969 and CHECKBOX-1539.

Documentation

Coverage tests are included with this PR.

Tests

I tested this on my desktop, which has an AMD GPU (AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT). NOTE: For some AMD GPUs, you may need to change the environment variable HSA_OVERRIDE_GFX_VERSION for rvs to recognize that your GPU is compatible with some ROCm/HIP functions. For example, for my GPU, I had to edit the value to 10.3.0.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 47.81%. Comparing base (cd772da) to head (ab38aaf).
Report is 103 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1531      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   47.72%   47.81%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         370      371       +1     
  Lines       39739    39808      +69     
  Branches     6719     6730      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        18965    19034      +69     
  Misses      20059    20059              
  Partials      715      715              

Flag	Coverage Δ
provider-gpgpu	83.78% <100.00%> (+26.64%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[pedro-avalos]

One design question I'd like some feedback on is how rvs.py takes the modules as positional arguments. Since we're likely to just use these one at a time in Checkbox jobs, should these be subparsers instead? If they are subparsers, then we could conceivably add the module configuration as options for those subparsers. The more I think about it, they should be subparsers. Let me know what you think!

[fernando79513]

akes the modules as positional arguments. Since we're likely to just use these one at a time in Checkbox jobs, should these be subparsers instead? If they are subparsers, then we could conceivably add the module configuration as options for those subparsers. The more I think about it, they should be subparsers. Let me know what you think!

I think the configs are complex enough to be kept into separated config files. I would restrict the modules parameter to run only one module, and I think you could simplify the argparser by setting choices for the possible modules:

    parser.add_argument(
        "modules",
        metavar="MOD",
        nargs="*",
        choices=RVS_MODULES.keys(),
        type=str,
        help="RVS modules to run [{}]".format(", ".join(RVS_MODULES)),
    )

[fernando79513]

Some small changes. You don't need to handle the return values if you are not going to use them. Consider just raising a SystemExit() with the message you want to simplify the code.

[fernando79513]

LGTM +1!