Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[SYCL][Graph] Clarify graph in-order and out-of-order properties #370

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

fabiomestre
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

Copy link
Collaborator

@EwanC EwanC left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the syclQueue parameter description of

command_graph(const queue& syclQueue,
              const property_list& propList = {});

There's the line "All other properties of the queue are ignored for the purposes of graph creation." Can we add a link there to the Queue Properties section, something like - "See the Queue Properties section for more general information about how queue properties interact with command_graph objects."

@fabiomestre
Copy link
Collaborator Author

In the syclQueue parameter description of

command_graph(const queue& syclQueue,
              const property_list& propList = {});

There's the line "All other properties of the queue are ignored for the purposes of graph creation." Can we add a link there to the Queue Properties section, something like - "See the Queue Properties section for more general information about how queue properties interact with command_graph objects."

I have added this suggestion. I'm a bit unsure about it though. The details of the queue properties are unrelated to this function (since all of them are ignored). Since this is a description of a parameter which ideally should be succint, it could be crossing the fine line between providing detail and bloating the spec. Don't have a huge objection though.

queue have no effect on how the nodes within the graph are executed (e.g. the graph
nodes without dependency edges may execute out-of-order even when using an in-order
queue). For further information about how the properties of a queue affect graphs
<<Queue Properties, see the section on Queue Properties>>
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<<Queue Properties, see the section on Queue Properties>>
<<Queue Properties, see the section on Queue Properties>>.

queue are ignored for the purposes of graph creation.
queue are ignored for the purposes of graph creation. See the
<<Queue Properties, Queue Properties>> section for more general information
about how queue properties interact with command_graph objects.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
about how queue properties interact with command_graph objects.
about how queue properties interact with `command_graph` objects.

@EwanC
Copy link
Collaborator

EwanC commented May 7, 2024

I have added this suggestion. I'm a bit unsure about it though. The details of the queue properties are unrelated to this function (since all of them are ignored). Since this is a description of a parameter which ideally should be succint, it could be crossing the fine line between providing detail and bloating the spec. Don't have a huge objection though.

In the email where we got feedback about the in-order/out-of-order properties not being clear, this parameter description of the spec was a place the reader was looking and had questions about. I think the benefit of being able to point to a place with related information in a large spec is worth the extra sentence of verbosity.

@fabiomestre
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Upstream PR: intel#13681

@fabiomestre fabiomestre closed this May 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants