-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 798
[SYCL][UR] Disable UR_LAYER_PARAMETER_VALIDATION by default #15105
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
Conversation
1103b42 to
0f5e04c
Compare
0f5e04c to
4a7dad1
Compare
sycl/test-e2e/format.py
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we really need it? We had internal e2e tests running with UR verification/L0 plugin leaks detection enabled (before PI removal) and the only single issue (AFAIK) caught by UR verification level was the verification code itself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The plugins used to have some level of parameter checking in the entry points themselves, that's not the case with UR where this only occurs on the validation layer. The failing tests in this PR appear to depend on parameter checking for correctness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- I'm still not convinced. I'm not going to "request changes", so if anybody from the SYCL RT feels strongly that this PR should be merged, feel free to approve.
-
The failing tests in this PR appear to depend on parameter checking for correctness.
can you elaborate on this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hello @aelovikov-intel ,
So, I want to understand your concern. My primary concern is to disable the validation layer by default because this is impacting performance on every call to the UR. Is your concern the fact that we would enable the validation layer during E2E testing?
Why would that be an issue? Don't we want to have more checks during the E2E testing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why would that be an issue?
because it affects timing and could possible hide issues that our customers would see without that validation. Also, how many issues that actually catches?
sycl/test-e2e/format.py
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The plugins used to have some level of parameter checking in the entry points themselves, that's not the case with UR where this only occurs on the validation layer. The failing tests in this PR appear to depend on parameter checking for correctness.
4a7dad1 to
6485823
Compare
6485823 to
904412b
Compare
904412b to
4169e8f
Compare
|
@intel/llvm-gatekeepers please merge when available. |
|
@intel/llvm-gatekeepers , please merge. |
|
@nrspruit We still need a review from @intel/llvm-reviewers-runtime @aelovikov-intel provided initial feedback, maybe he can check if his feedback was addressed and approve if so? |
sycl/source/detail/ur.cpp
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
probably this comment needs to be updated too
15b9b01 to
63fda4b
Compare
63fda4b to
0d6980e
Compare
0d6980e to
0cb0e5f
Compare
0cb0e5f to
3ded0b1
Compare
- Only Enable UR_LAYER_PARAMETER_VALIDATION if UR_LOG_VALIDATION is set. Signed-off-by: Neil R. Spruit <neil.r.spruit@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Neil R. Spruit <neil.r.spruit@intel.com>
3ded0b1 to
685c6a9
Compare
|
@intel/llvm-gatekeepers please merge. |
No description provided.