[SYCL][Doc] Add sycl_ext_oneapi_device_is_integrated spec extension
#20085
Conversation
dm-vodopyanov
changed the title
is_gpu_integrated query to sycl_ext_intel_device_infosycl_ext_oneapi_device_is_integrated spec extension
sycl/doc/extensions/proposed/sycl_ext_oneapi_device_is_integrated.asciidoc
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Please update description on how it's different from https://registry.khronos.org/SYCL/specs/sycl-2020/html/sycl-2020.html#api:info-device-host-unified-memory |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I saw that an earlier version of this PR added the query to sycl_ext_intel_device_info. Why did you change your mind and add it as a separate extension?
If we need to add this query as both an info descriptor and also an aspect (telling whether the info descriptor is supported), then it might be better to add it to sycl_ext_intel_device_info because it matches the pattern we use there.
| == Overview | ||
|
|
||
| This extension allows host code to check whether a physical device, represented | ||
| by a SYCL device, is integrated with the host. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd suggest a slight rewording here because the difference between "integrated" and "discrete" isn't always clear cut:
This extension allows host code to check whether a SYCL GPU device is "integrated" or "discrete". An integrated GPU device often shares memory with the host CPU, while a discrete GPU is often a separate card with its own memory. However, some GPU devices may not fit neatly into either category, so implementors may provide their own judgement when categorizing a GPU device as "integrated" vs. "discrete".
@bashbaug does this seem like a reasonable description? Any suggestions?
| |Return type | ||
| |Description | ||
|
|
||
| |`sycl::ext::oneapi::info::device::device_is_integrated` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| |`sycl::ext::oneapi::info::device::device_is_integrated` | |
| |`sycl::ext::oneapi::info::device::is_integrated_gpu` |
The word "device" seems redundant because this is a device query.
|
|
||
| |`sycl::ext::oneapi::info::device::device_is_integrated` | ||
| |bool | ||
| |Returns `true` if device is integrated, otherwise returns `false`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| |Returns `true` if device is integrated, otherwise returns `false`. | |
| |Returns `true` if the device is an integrated GPU, otherwise returns `false`. Any device which returns `true` for this query will also have the aspect `aspect::gpu`. |
| |Aspect | ||
| |Description | ||
|
|
||
| |`ext_oneapi_device_is_integrated` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| |`ext_oneapi_device_is_integrated` | |
| |`ext_oneapi_is_integrated_gpu` |
| |`ext_oneapi_device_is_integrated` | ||
| |Indicates that the device supports the | ||
| `sycl::device::get_info<sycl::ext::oneapi::info::device::device_is_integrated>()` | ||
| call. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just curious, why can't we support this call for all devices? Do we need special support in the backend driver?
If we could support the query for all devices, then we would just need an aspect, rather than having both the info descriptor and an aspect (which tells whether the info descriptor is supported).
| @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ | |||
| = sycl_ext_oneapi_device_is_integrated | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| = sycl_ext_oneapi_device_is_integrated | |
| = sycl_ext_oneapi_is_integrated_gpu |
May as well rename this too to match the query name.
No description provided.