Re: [boost] Synchronization (RE: [compute] review)

30 Dec 2014

      On 30/12/2014 00:49, Kyle Lutz wrote:
...
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Thomas M  wrote:
...
On 29/12/2014 22:51, Kyle Lutz wrote:
...
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Thomas M  wrote:
...
...
...
Interested yes, time is currently a problem though; I'd need to familiarize
myself much deeper with your implementation.
At this stage my main concern is exception safety - how one could relief
users in a simplistic manner from the need to manually taking care that
objects do not get out-of-scope (due to an exception thrown) while an OpenCL
asynchronous operation still needs them. Note that because your API can
throw I consider exception effects to be of much greater concern than with
the (implicitly non-throwing) Khronos API; and just enqueuing a couple of
commands can make a proper, manual cleanup really easily non-trivial.
I have tried as much as possible to ensure that the library
exception-safe (I surely hope you aren't assuming that I intentionally
made the library non-exception-safe). If you do find any bugs related
to exception handling please do submit them with a reproducible
test-case to the issue tracker [1] and I will get them fixed as soon
as possible.
No, I never assumed you make it intentionally unsafe. However you, as 
implementer, probably know ways more about when something may throw (and 
how things then behave) then users, and thus which exception guarantees 
your library implicitly provides. Is there a docs section which 
explicitly says under which circumstances something may throw and how 
subsequently behavior, e.g. of asynchronous operations already launched, 
is defined?

I take your transform tutorial code as example:

// create a vector on the device
compute::vector<float> device_vector(host_vector.size(), context);

// transfer data from the host to the device
compute::copy(host_vector.begin(), host_vector.end(),
               device_vector.begin(), queue);

// calculate the square-root of each element in-place
compute::transform(device_vector.begin(),
                    device_vector.end(),
                    device_vector.begin(),
                    compute::sqrt<float>(),
                    queue);

// copy values back to the host
compute::copy(device_vector.begin(), device_vector.end(),
               host_vector.begin(), queue);

For neither the copy nor transform algorithm does the doc explicitly say 
that it isn't throwing anything (apologize if it says so in another doc 
section), so for exception-safe code as user I must assume the worst, 
i.e. any of them can throw (for the moment assume that I don't choose to 
disable throwing by #define). So I must ensure that device_vector will 
be kept alive until all commands which were successfully launched could 
finish; that appears to boiling down to something like a try around the 
copy-transform-copy, and a queue.finish() (or similar) in catch. If 
there is more than one container / command-queue etc. involved the 
complexity of sorting things out for proper cleanup can raise 
considerably; so does it when within the program hierarchy the 
creation/lifetime management of a container on the one hand and the 
command queue ownership / invocation of operations on the container on 
the other hand are separated (there may simply be naturally no central 
place which can control both the container lifetime and also have access 
to the command queue(s)).

Note the aim is not desperately trying to get the results of the 
transform somehow, just to ensure that the OpenCL runtime is not doing 
anything disastrous in the asynchronous background, i.e. here accessing 
memory that has already gone out of scope due to stack unwinding. If 
your implementation already provides some exception / safety guarantees 
in the example then these must become easily visible to users.

Thomas