RFC to design a unified oneDPL approach to asynchrony #1916
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
akukanov
changed the title
reble
reviewed
Oct 24, 2024
reble
reviewed
Oct 24, 2024
akukanov
requested review from
vossmjp,
timmiesmith,
danhoeflinger,
reble,
MikeDvorskiy,
rarutyun and
SergeyKopienko
|
|
||
| ### Thrust and CUB | ||
|
|
||
| The Thrust library from Nvidia uses two approaches for its asynchronous algorithms. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is more correct : may be NVIDIA ?
danhoeflinger
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The proposal aims at designing a consistent approach to asynchronous execution that would be utilized by various APIs of oneDPL, such as asynchronous algorithms and dynamic selection.
Update: the decision was made not to proceed with the proposal, the PR is now for wrapping up and archiving.
The associated discussion: #1917