llvm dev - Apr 2016 - [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM subproject for parallelism runtime and support libraries

I've put together a proposed "charter" for this new project, which
I am
calling parallel_utils (although I'm very open to suggestions for a better
name). The text of my charter is below, and I welcome any input on how it
can be improved.


====================================================LLVM Parallel Utils
Subproject Charter
====================================================
----------------------------------------------
Description
----------------------------------------------
The LLVM open source project will contain a subproject named
`parallel_utils` which will host the development of libraries which are
aimed at enabling parallelism in code and which are also closely tied to
compiler technology.  Examples of libraries suitable for hosting within the
`parallel_utils` subproject are runtime libraries and parallel math
libraries. The initial candidates for inclusion in this subproject are
StreamExecutor and libomptarget which would live in the `streamexecutor`
and `libomptarget` subdirectories of `parallel_utils`, respectively.

The `parallel_utils` project will host a collection of libraries where each
library may be dependent on other libraries from the project or may be
completely independent of any other libraries in the project. The rationale
for hosting independent libraries within the same subproject is that all
libraries in the project are providing related functionality that lives at
the intersection of parallelism and compiler technology. It is expected
that some libraries which initially began as independent will develop
dependencies over time either between existing libraries or by extracting
common code that can be used by each. One of the purposes of this
subproject is to provide a working space where such refactoring and code
sharing can take place.

Libraries in the `parallel_utils` subproject may also depend on the LLVM
core libraries. This will be useful for avoiding duplication of code within
the LLVM project for common utilities such as those found in the LLVM
support library.


----------------------------------------------
Requirements
----------------------------------------------
Libraries included in the `parallel_utils` subproject must strive to
achieve the following requirements:

1. Adhere to the LLVM coding standards.
2. Use the LLVM build and test infrastructure.
3. Be released under LLVM's license.


Coding standards
----------------
Libraries in `parallel_utils` will match the LLVM coding standards. For
existing projects being checked into the subproject as-is, an exception
will be made during the initial check-in, with the understanding that the
code will be promptly updated to follow the standards. Therefore, a three
month grace period will be allowed for new libraries to meet the LLVM
coding standards.

Additional exceptions to strict adherence to the LLVM coding standards may
be allowed in certain other cases, but the reasons for such exceptions must
be discussed and documented on a case-by-case basis.


LLVM build and test infrastructure
----------------------------------
Using the LLVM build and test infrastructure currently means using `cmake`
for building, `lit` for testing, and `buildbot` for automating build and
testing. This project will follow the main LLVM project conventions here
and track them as they evolve.


LLVM license
------------
For simplicity, the `parallel_utils` project will use the normal LLVM
license. While some runtime libraries use a dual license scheme in LLVM, we
anticipate the project removing the need for this eventually and in the
interim follow the simpler but still permissive license. Among other
things, this makes it straightforward for these libraries to re-use core
LLVM libraries where appropriate.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:52 AM Jason Henline <jhen at google.com> wrote:
> Andrey,
>
> I may have misunderstood Chandler, but I think it would be good to house
> libomptarget together with SE in the new project. I suspect he means to
> leave the option open for the libomptarget developers to choose the best
> option as they see fit.
>
> In terms of organization, I would expect the project initially to contain
> a StreamExecutor directory and a libomptarget directory where each project
> could work separately.
>
> When it comes to the difference in review process between the two
> projects, I don't know the answer. I would expect the new project to
handle
> reviews similar to the way they are handled in the LLVM project itself, so
> I don't know if there would be any difference compared to what is
happening
> now with libomptarget.
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:32 AM C Bergström <openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I respect Hal's more tactful approach and response..
>>
>> Let me play devils advocate for a minute
>>
>> 1) Yet another programming model - Is the advantage spelled out
>> somewhere? (I know there are reasons, but I'd like to see a FAQ or
>> this clearly documented. Examples pretty please.. More for long term
>> than my own selfish benefit)
>> 2) Is this an "open standard" - If I wanted to propose a
major change
>> to SE - how would I or someone else go about it? OpenMP/ACC have more
>> or less clearly defined paths for new features.. What's the
governing
>> policy here.. Bug fixes are easy to deal with, but does Google have
>> final say on the roadmap..
>> 3) When the project is created - will it include lots of good tests?
>> 4) It's probably used internally @google - who else will be using
>> this? Is the target HPC, Android.. etc
>>
>> Lastly - sorry, but I don't like this kick-the-can approach to what
>> should be proper engineering and planning upfront. Can someone @google
>> gentleman's promise to actively work on playing nice with other
>> projects, specifically OpenMP and Intel. From my perspective nothing
>> stops Google from tossing it up on github or google code and letting
>> it stay there until all the pieces are in the correct place. Why it
>> *must* be an llvm project now doesn't make sense to me. When the
shoe
>> was on the other foot (OpenMP) there was all sorts of shit and redtape
>> Intel (and others) had to jump around to get it included. Google has a
>> lot of good karma in the llvm community and maybe that's the
>> difference..
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmp-dev mailing list
>> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160427/f33f0974/attachment.html>

Jason,

Very nice write-up. Well done!

My two kopecks (before you asked, one kopeck is the smallest item of
currency in Russia ;-)):
* Bugzilla and mailing list requirements are not covered. Do you want to
have a component in Bugzilla for each project? One for all of them? Mailing
list -- a separate list for each project? (IMHO, an overkill) One for all
of them?
* Build system -- I suppose you expect all of the libs to be built
separately, without a single unified cmake file. Correct? Also, I expect
you want all of the libs to be integrated into LLVM build -- correct? This
should be spelled out explicitly.
* I don't really like "parallel" in the name. Both SE and
libomptarget are
libraries that handle offloading, not parallelism. I understand other
libraries, to be added in the future, might deal with parallelism, but
maybe we need a separate project for them? (Something Chris already
hinted.) How about "offloading_lib"?

Yours,
Andrey


On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jason Henline via Openmp-dev <
openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I've put together a proposed "charter" for this new project,
which I am
> calling parallel_utils (although I'm very open to suggestions for a
better
> name). The text of my charter is below, and I welcome any input on how it
> can be improved.
>
>
> ====================================================> LLVM Parallel
Utils Subproject Charter
> ====================================================>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Description
> ----------------------------------------------
> The LLVM open source project will contain a subproject named
> `parallel_utils` which will host the development of libraries which are
> aimed at enabling parallelism in code and which are also closely tied to
> compiler technology.  Examples of libraries suitable for hosting within the
> `parallel_utils` subproject are runtime libraries and parallel math
> libraries. The initial candidates for inclusion in this subproject are
> StreamExecutor and libomptarget which would live in the `streamexecutor`
> and `libomptarget` subdirectories of `parallel_utils`, respectively.
>
> The `parallel_utils` project will host a collection of libraries where
> each library may be dependent on other libraries from the project or may be
> completely independent of any other libraries in the project. The rationale
> for hosting independent libraries within the same subproject is that all
> libraries in the project are providing related functionality that lives at
> the intersection of parallelism and compiler technology. It is expected
> that some libraries which initially began as independent will develop
> dependencies over time either between existing libraries or by extracting
> common code that can be used by each. One of the purposes of this
> subproject is to provide a working space where such refactoring and code
> sharing can take place.
>
> Libraries in the `parallel_utils` subproject may also depend on the LLVM
> core libraries. This will be useful for avoiding duplication of code within
> the LLVM project for common utilities such as those found in the LLVM
> support library.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Requirements
> ----------------------------------------------
> Libraries included in the `parallel_utils` subproject must strive to
> achieve the following requirements:
>
> 1. Adhere to the LLVM coding standards.
> 2. Use the LLVM build and test infrastructure.
> 3. Be released under LLVM's license.
>
>
> Coding standards
> ----------------
> Libraries in `parallel_utils` will match the LLVM coding standards. For
> existing projects being checked into the subproject as-is, an exception
> will be made during the initial check-in, with the understanding that the
> code will be promptly updated to follow the standards. Therefore, a three
> month grace period will be allowed for new libraries to meet the LLVM
> coding standards.
>
> Additional exceptions to strict adherence to the LLVM coding standards may
> be allowed in certain other cases, but the reasons for such exceptions must
> be discussed and documented on a case-by-case basis.
>
>
> LLVM build and test infrastructure
> ----------------------------------
> Using the LLVM build and test infrastructure currently means using `cmake`
> for building, `lit` for testing, and `buildbot` for automating build and
> testing. This project will follow the main LLVM project conventions here
> and track them as they evolve.
>
>
> LLVM license
> ------------
> For simplicity, the `parallel_utils` project will use the normal LLVM
> license. While some runtime libraries use a dual license scheme in LLVM, we
> anticipate the project removing the need for this eventually and in the
> interim follow the simpler but still permissive license. Among other
> things, this makes it straightforward for these libraries to re-use core
> LLVM libraries where appropriate.
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:52 AM Jason Henline <jhen at google.com>
wrote:
>
>> Andrey,
>>
>> I may have misunderstood Chandler, but I think it would be good to
house
>> libomptarget together with SE in the new project. I suspect he means to
>> leave the option open for the libomptarget developers to choose the
best
>> option as they see fit.
>>
>> In terms of organization, I would expect the project initially to
contain
>> a StreamExecutor directory and a libomptarget directory where each
project
>> could work separately.
>>
>> When it comes to the difference in review process between the two
>> projects, I don't know the answer. I would expect the new project
to handle
>> reviews similar to the way they are handled in the LLVM project itself,
so
>> I don't know if there would be any difference compared to what is
happening
>> now with libomptarget.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:32 AM C Bergström <openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I respect Hal's more tactful approach and response..
>>>
>>> Let me play devils advocate for a minute
>>>
>>> 1) Yet another programming model - Is the advantage spelled out
>>> somewhere? (I know there are reasons, but I'd like to see a FAQ
or
>>> this clearly documented. Examples pretty please.. More for long
term
>>> than my own selfish benefit)
>>> 2) Is this an "open standard" - If I wanted to propose a
major change
>>> to SE - how would I or someone else go about it? OpenMP/ACC have
more
>>> or less clearly defined paths for new features.. What's the
governing
>>> policy here.. Bug fixes are easy to deal with, but does Google have
>>> final say on the roadmap..
>>> 3) When the project is created - will it include lots of good
tests?
>>> 4) It's probably used internally @google - who else will be
using
>>> this? Is the target HPC, Android.. etc
>>>
>>> Lastly - sorry, but I don't like this kick-the-can approach to
what
>>> should be proper engineering and planning upfront. Can someone
@google
>>> gentleman's promise to actively work on playing nice with other
>>> projects, specifically OpenMP and Intel. From my perspective
nothing
>>> stops Google from tossing it up on github or google code and
letting
>>> it stay there until all the pieces are in the correct place. Why it
>>> *must* be an llvm project now doesn't make sense to me. When
the shoe
>>> was on the other foot (OpenMP) there was all sorts of shit and
redtape
>>> Intel (and others) had to jump around to get it included. Google
has a
>>> lot of good karma in the llvm community and maybe that's the
>>> difference..
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openmp-dev mailing list
>>> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160428/1fd2998b/attachment.html>

<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr"
style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div
dir="ltr" >A suggestion on naming: by choosing too generic a name,
you don't get any branding.</div>
<div dir="ltr" > </div>
<div dir="ltr" >My point for the omp library: if someone talks
about GOMP, KMPC / IOMP, or LOMP, they would know we are talking about the GNU,
Intel, IBM implementation. I don't think we get that with OMP, which was
selected for the OMP runtime.</div>
<div dir="ltr" > </div>
<div dir="ltr" >So I would suggest to append "llvm" or
"lr" for LLVM runtime, or something distinctive that you like.
</div>
<div dir="ltr" > </div>
<div dir="ltr" >This make sense because users will have choices
of runtimes, gcc linking to GOMP, LLVM runtime, LOMP on POWER; GOMP, LLVM, IOMP
on Intel... and we will need to educate our users on which one to
use.</div>
<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr"
style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div
class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr"
style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div
class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr"
style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div
class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr"
style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10.5pt" ><div
dir="ltr"
><br>Alexandre<br><br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><span
style="color:#0000CD;" >Alexandre Eichenberger, Master Inventor,
Advanced Compiler Technologies</span><br><span
style="color:#0000CD;" >- research</span>: compiler
optimization (OpenMP, multithreading, SIMD)<br><span
style="color:#0000CD;" >- info:</span> alexe@us.ibm.com
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/a/alexe<br><span
style="color:#0000CD;" >- phone</span>: 914-945-1812 (work)
914-312-3618 (cell)</div></div></div></div></div>
<div dir="ltr" > </div>
<div dir="ltr" > </div>
<blockquote data-history-content-modified="1" dir="ltr"
style="border-left:solid #aaaaaa 2px; margin-left:5px; padding-left:5px;
direction:ltr; margin-right:0px" >----- Original message
-----<br>From: Andrey Bokhanko via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org><br>Sent by: "cfe-dev"
<cfe-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org><br>To: Jason Henline
<jhen@google.com><br>Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org>,
clang developer list <cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org>,
"openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org"
<openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org><br>Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev]
[llvm-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM subproject for parallelism runtime and support
libraries<br>Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 9:23 AM<br>
<div dir="ltr" >Jason,
<div><br>Very nice write-up. Well done!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My two kopecks (before you asked, one kopeck is the smallest item of
currency in Russia ;-)):</div>
<div>* Bugzilla and mailing list requirements are not covered. Do you want
to have a component in Bugzilla for each project? One for all of them? Mailing
list -- a separate list for each project? (IMHO, an overkill) One for all of
them?</div>
<div>* Build system -- I suppose you expect all of the libs to be built
separately, without a single unified cmake file. Correct? Also, I expect you
want all of the libs to be integrated into LLVM build -- correct? This should be
spelled out explicitly.</div>
<div>* I don't really like "parallel" in the name. Both SE
and libomptarget are libraries that handle offloading, not parallelism. I
understand other libraries, to be added in the future, might deal with
parallelism, but maybe we need a separate project for them? (Something Chris
already hinted.) How about "offloading_lib"?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yours,</div>
<div>Andrey</div>
<div> </div></div>
<div> 
<div>On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jason Henline via Openmp-dev
<span dir="ltr" ><<a
href="mailto:openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank"
>openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:

<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex" ><div dir="ltr" >I've put
together a proposed "charter" for this new project, which I am calling
parallel_utils (although I'm very open to suggestions for a better name).
The text of my charter is below, and I welcome any input on how it can be
improved.
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><div>=====================================================</div>
<div>LLVM Parallel Utils Subproject Charter</div>
<div>=====================================================</div>
<div> </div>
<div>----------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Description</div>
<div>----------------------------------------------</div>
<div>The LLVM open source project will contain a subproject named
`parallel_utils` which will host the development of libraries which are aimed at
enabling parallelism in code and which are also closely tied to compiler
technology.  Examples of libraries suitable for hosting within the
`parallel_utils` subproject are runtime libraries and parallel math libraries.
The initial candidates for inclusion in this subproject are StreamExecutor and
libomptarget which would live in the `streamexecutor` and `libomptarget`
subdirectories of `parallel_utils`, respectively.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The `parallel_utils` project will host a collection of libraries
where each library may be dependent on other libraries from the project or may
be completely independent of any other libraries in the project. The rationale
for hosting independent libraries within the same subproject is that all
libraries in the project are providing related functionality that lives at the
intersection of parallelism and compiler technology. It is expected that some
libraries which initially began as independent will develop dependencies over
time either between existing libraries or by extracting common code that can be
used by each. One of the purposes of this subproject is to provide a working
space where such refactoring and code sharing can take place.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Libraries in the `parallel_utils` subproject may also depend on the
LLVM core libraries. This will be useful for avoiding duplication of code within
the LLVM project for common utilities such as those found in the LLVM support
library.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>----------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Requirements</div>
<div>----------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Libraries included in the `parallel_utils` subproject must strive to
achieve the following requirements:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1. Adhere to the LLVM coding standards.</div>
<div>2. Use the LLVM build and test infrastructure.</div>
<div>3. Be released under LLVM's license.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Coding standards</div>
<div>----------------</div>
<div>Libraries in `parallel_utils` will match the LLVM coding standards.
For existing projects being checked into the subproject as-is, an exception will
be made during the initial check-in, with the understanding that the code will
be promptly updated to follow the standards. Therefore, a three month grace
period will be allowed for new libraries to meet the LLVM coding
standards.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Additional exceptions to strict adherence to the LLVM coding
standards may be allowed in certain other cases, but the reasons for such
exceptions must be discussed and documented on a case-by-case basis.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>LLVM build and test infrastructure</div>
<div>----------------------------------</div>
<div>Using the LLVM build and test infrastructure currently means using
`cmake` for building, `lit` for testing, and `buildbot` for automating build and
testing. This project will follow the main LLVM project conventions here and
track them as they evolve.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>LLVM license</div>
<div>------------</div>
<div>For simplicity, the `parallel_utils` project will use the normal LLVM
license. While some runtime libraries use a dual license scheme in LLVM, we
anticipate the project removing the need for this eventually and in the interim
follow the simpler but still permissive license. Among other things, this makes
it straightforward for these libraries to re-use core LLVM libraries where
appropriate.</div></div>
<div><div> 
<div><div dir="ltr" >On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:52 AM Jason
Henline <<a href="mailto:jhen@google.com"
target="_blank" >jhen@google.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex" ><div dir="ltr" >Andrey,
<div> </div>
<div>I may have misunderstood Chandler, but I think it would be good to
house libomptarget together with SE in the new project. I suspect he means to
leave the option open for the libomptarget developers to choose the best option
as they see fit.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In terms of organization, I would expect the project initially to
contain a StreamExecutor directory and a libomptarget directory where each
project could work separately.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>When it comes to the difference in review process between the two
projects, I don't know the answer. I would expect the new project to handle
reviews similar to the way they are handled in the LLVM project itself, so I
don't know if there would be any difference compared to what is happening
now with libomptarget.</div></div>

<div><div dir="ltr" >On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:32 AM C
Bergström <<a href="mailto:openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org"
target="_blank" >openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex" >I respect Hal's more tactful approach and
response..<br><br>Let me play devils advocate for a
minute<br><br>1) Yet another programming model - Is the advantage
spelled out<br>somewhere? (I know there are reasons, but I'd like to
see a FAQ or<br>this clearly documented. Examples pretty please.. More for
long term<br>than my own selfish benefit)<br>2) Is this an
"open standard" - If I wanted to propose a major change<br>to SE
- how would I or someone else go about it? OpenMP/ACC have more<br>or less
clearly defined paths for new features.. What's the
governing<br>policy here.. Bug fixes are easy to deal with, but does
Google have<br>final say on the roadmap..<br>3) When the project is
created - will it include lots of good tests?<br>4) It's probably used
internally @google - who else will be using<br>this? Is the target HPC,
Android.. etc<br><br>Lastly - sorry, but I don't like this
kick-the-can approach to what<br>should be proper engineering and planning
upfront. Can someone @google<br>gentleman's promise to actively work
on playing nice with other<br>projects, specifically OpenMP and Intel.
From my perspective nothing<br>stops Google from tossing it up on github
or google code and letting<br>it stay there until all the pieces are in
the correct place. Why it<br>*must* be an llvm project now doesn't
make sense to me. When the shoe<br>was on the other foot (OpenMP) there
was all sorts of shit and redtape<br>Intel (and others) had to jump around
to get it included. Google has a<br>lot of good karma in the llvm
community and maybe that's
the<br>difference..<br>_______________________________________________<br>Openmp-dev
mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org"
target="_blank" >Openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br><a
href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
>http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev</a></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Openmp-dev
mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org"
target="_blank" >Openmp-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br><a
href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
>http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
<div><font face="Default Monospace,Courier
New,Courier,monospace" size="2"
>_______________________________________________<br>cfe-dev mailing
list<br>cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org<br><a
href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev"
target="_blank"
>http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a></font></div></blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" > </div></div><BR>

Andrey,

To clarify, I'm not speaking on review of new patches, but on review of
existing code. I suppose SE is a significant project, with code already
reviewed internally @google. Do we plan to require this existing code pass
through llvm community review process as well? If not, same standards
should be applied to libomptarget

My understanding is that the StreamExecutor code is going to undergo review
from several members of the community in order to get it checked in.
However, as part of my charter proposal I suggested that the LLVM coding
standards be relaxed for initial check-in of existing projects, so I think
the reviews will not be as stringent as normal reviews in this sense. From
my perspective, I don't see why libomptarget would be treated differently,
so I think the same standard would be applied there.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 7:09 AM Alexandre Eichenberger <alexe at
us.ibm.com>
wrote:
> A suggestion on naming: by choosing too generic a name, you don't get
any
> branding.
>
> My point for the omp library: if someone talks about GOMP, KMPC / IOMP, or
> LOMP, they would know we are talking about the GNU, Intel, IBM
> implementation. I don't think we get that with OMP, which was selected
for
> the OMP runtime.
>
> So I would suggest to append "llvm" or "lr" for LLVM
runtime, or something
> distinctive that you like.
>
> This make sense because users will have choices of runtimes, gcc linking
> to GOMP, LLVM runtime, LOMP on POWER; GOMP, LLVM, IOMP on Intel... and we
> will need to educate our users on which one to use.
>
> Alexandre
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Alexandre Eichenberger, Master Inventor, Advanced Compiler Technologies
> - research: compiler optimization (OpenMP, multithreading, SIMD)
> - info: alexe at us.ibm.com http://www.research.ibm.com/people/a/alexe
> - phone: 914-945-1812 (work) 914-312-3618 (cell)
>
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: Andrey Bokhanko via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent by: "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
> To: Jason Henline <jhen at google.com>
>
> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, clang developer list <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org"
<
> openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM
> subproject for parallelism runtime and support libraries
> Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 9:23 AM
>
> Jason,
>
> Very nice write-up. Well done!
>
> My two kopecks (before you asked, one kopeck is the smallest item of
> currency in Russia ;-)):
> * Bugzilla and mailing list requirements are not covered. Do you want to
> have a component in Bugzilla for each project? One for all of them? Mailing
> list -- a separate list for each project? (IMHO, an overkill) One for all
> of them?
> * Build system -- I suppose you expect all of the libs to be built
> separately, without a single unified cmake file. Correct? Also, I expect
> you want all of the libs to be integrated into LLVM build -- correct? This
> should be spelled out explicitly.
> * I don't really like "parallel" in the name. Both SE and
libomptarget are
> libraries that handle offloading, not parallelism. I understand other
> libraries, to be added in the future, might deal with parallelism, but
> maybe we need a separate project for them? (Something Chris already
> hinted.) How about "offloading_lib"?
>
> Yours,
> Andrey
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jason Henline via Openmp-dev <
> openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I've put together a proposed "charter" for this new project,
which I am
> calling parallel_utils (although I'm very open to suggestions for a
better
> name). The text of my charter is below, and I welcome any input on how it
> can be improved.
>
>
> ====================================================> LLVM Parallel
Utils Subproject Charter
> ====================================================>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Description
> ----------------------------------------------
> The LLVM open source project will contain a subproject named
> `parallel_utils` which will host the development of libraries which are
> aimed at enabling parallelism in code and which are also closely tied to
> compiler technology.  Examples of libraries suitable for hosting within the
> `parallel_utils` subproject are runtime libraries and parallel math
> libraries. The initial candidates for inclusion in this subproject are
> StreamExecutor and libomptarget which would live in the `streamexecutor`
> and `libomptarget` subdirectories of `parallel_utils`, respectively.
>
> The `parallel_utils` project will host a collection of libraries where
> each library may be dependent on other libraries from the project or may be
> completely independent of any other libraries in the project. The rationale
> for hosting independent libraries within the same subproject is that all
> libraries in the project are providing related functionality that lives at
> the intersection of parallelism and compiler technology. It is expected
> that some libraries which initially began as independent will develop
> dependencies over time either between existing libraries or by extracting
> common code that can be used by each. One of the purposes of this
> subproject is to provide a working space where such refactoring and code
> sharing can take place.
>
> Libraries in the `parallel_utils` subproject may also depend on the LLVM
> core libraries. This will be useful for avoiding duplication of code within
> the LLVM project for common utilities such as those found in the LLVM
> support library.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Requirements
> ----------------------------------------------
> Libraries included in the `parallel_utils` subproject must strive to
> achieve the following requirements:
>
> 1. Adhere to the LLVM coding standards.
> 2. Use the LLVM build and test infrastructure.
> 3. Be released under LLVM's license.
>
>
> Coding standards
> ----------------
> Libraries in `parallel_utils` will match the LLVM coding standards. For
> existing projects being checked into the subproject as-is, an exception
> will be made during the initial check-in, with the understanding that the
> code will be promptly updated to follow the standards. Therefore, a three
> month grace period will be allowed for new libraries to meet the LLVM
> coding standards.
>
> Additional exceptions to strict adherence to the LLVM coding standards may
> be allowed in certain other cases, but the reasons for such exceptions must
> be discussed and documented on a case-by-case basis.
>
>
> LLVM build and test infrastructure
> ----------------------------------
> Using the LLVM build and test infrastructure currently means using `cmake`
> for building, `lit` for testing, and `buildbot` for automating build and
> testing. This project will follow the main LLVM project conventions here
> and track them as they evolve.
>
>
> LLVM license
> ------------
> For simplicity, the `parallel_utils` project will use the normal LLVM
> license. While some runtime libraries use a dual license scheme in LLVM, we
> anticipate the project removing the need for this eventually and in the
> interim follow the simpler but still permissive license. Among other
> things, this makes it straightforward for these libraries to re-use core
> LLVM libraries where appropriate.
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:52 AM Jason Henline <jhen at google.com>
wrote:
>
> Andrey,
>
> I may have misunderstood Chandler, but I think it would be good to house
> libomptarget together with SE in the new project. I suspect he means to
> leave the option open for the libomptarget developers to choose the best
> option as they see fit.
>
> In terms of organization, I would expect the project initially to contain
> a StreamExecutor directory and a libomptarget directory where each project
> could work separately.
>
> When it comes to the difference in review process between the two
> projects, I don't know the answer. I would expect the new project to
handle
> reviews similar to the way they are handled in the LLVM project itself, so
> I don't know if there would be any difference compared to what is
happening
> now with libomptarget.
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:32 AM C Bergström <openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>
> I respect Hal's more tactful approach and response..
>
> Let me play devils advocate for a minute
>
> 1) Yet another programming model - Is the advantage spelled out
> somewhere? (I know there are reasons, but I'd like to see a FAQ or
> this clearly documented. Examples pretty please.. More for long term
> than my own selfish benefit)
> 2) Is this an "open standard" - If I wanted to propose a major
change
> to SE - how would I or someone else go about it? OpenMP/ACC have more
> or less clearly defined paths for new features.. What's the governing
> policy here.. Bug fixes are easy to deal with, but does Google have
> final say on the roadmap..
> 3) When the project is created - will it include lots of good tests?
> 4) It's probably used internally @google - who else will be using
> this? Is the target HPC, Android.. etc
>
> Lastly - sorry, but I don't like this kick-the-can approach to what
> should be proper engineering and planning upfront. Can someone @google
> gentleman's promise to actively work on playing nice with other
> projects, specifically OpenMP and Intel. From my perspective nothing
> stops Google from tossing it up on github or google code and letting
> it stay there until all the pieces are in the correct place. Why it
> *must* be an llvm project now doesn't make sense to me. When the shoe
> was on the other foot (OpenMP) there was all sorts of shit and redtape
> Intel (and others) had to jump around to get it included. Google has a
> lot of good karma in the llvm community and maybe that's the
> difference..
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160428/584e3d90/attachment.html>

Andrey,

Great points in your two kopecks :). Thanks for bringing them up.

* Bugzilla and mailing list requirements are not covered. Do you want to
have a component in Bugzilla for each project? One for all of them? Mailing
list -- a separate list for each project? (IMHO, an overkill) One for all
of them?

I think you're right that these should be addressed. I think there should
be one mailing list for the project and separate Bugzilla components for
each subproject. I was thinking of including it in the charter as follows:

BEGIN_CHARTER_SECTION
----------------------------------------------
Mailing List and Bugs
----------------------------------------------
Two mailing lists will be set up for the project:

1. parallel_libs-dev at lists.llvm.org for discussions among project
developers, and
2. parallel_libs-commits at lists.llvm.org for patches and commits to the
project.

Each subproject library will manage its own components in Bugzilla. So, for
example, there can be several Bugzilla components for different parts of
StreamExecutor, etc.
END_CHARTER_SECTION

* Build system -- I suppose you expect all of the libs to be built
separately, without a single unified cmake file. Correct? Also, I expect
you want all of the libs to be integrated into LLVM build -- correct? This
should be spelled out explicitly.

You are right that I expect the build to be arranged this way. Here is my
proposal for adding this to the "LLVM build and test infrastructure section
of the charter":

BEGIN_CHARTER_SECTION
Each subproject library will be able to build separately without a single,
unified cmake file, but each subproject libraries will also be integrated
into the LLVM build so they can be built directly from the top level of the
LLVM cmake infrastructure.
END_CHARTER_SECTION

* I don't really like "parallel" in the name. Both SE and
libomptarget are
libraries that handle offloading, not parallelism. I understand other
libraries, to be added in the future, might deal with parallelism, but
maybe we need a separate project for them? (Something Chris already
hinted.) How about "offloading_lib"?
>From my perspective, I think "offloading_lib" or maybe
"offloading_libs" is
a good name, but I suspect that Chandler might have something to say about
that. I'd like to hear his opinion.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:44 AM Jason Henline <jhen at google.com> wrote:
> Andrey,
>
> To clarify, I'm not speaking on review of new patches, but on review of
> existing code. I suppose SE is a significant project, with code already
> reviewed internally @google. Do we plan to require this existing code pass
> through llvm community review process as well? If not, same standards
> should be applied to libomptarget
>
> My understanding is that the StreamExecutor code is going to undergo
> review from several members of the community in order to get it checked in.
> However, as part of my charter proposal I suggested that the LLVM coding
> standards be relaxed for initial check-in of existing projects, so I think
> the reviews will not be as stringent as normal reviews in this sense. From
> my perspective, I don't see why libomptarget would be treated
differently,
> so I think the same standard would be applied there.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 7:09 AM Alexandre Eichenberger <alexe at
us.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A suggestion on naming: by choosing too generic a name, you don't
get any
>> branding.
>>
>> My point for the omp library: if someone talks about GOMP, KMPC / IOMP,
>> or LOMP, they would know we are talking about the GNU, Intel, IBM
>> implementation. I don't think we get that with OMP, which was
selected for
>> the OMP runtime.
>>
>> So I would suggest to append "llvm" or "lr" for
LLVM runtime, or
>> something distinctive that you like.
>>
>> This make sense because users will have choices of runtimes, gcc
linking
>> to GOMP, LLVM runtime, LOMP on POWER; GOMP, LLVM, IOMP on Intel... and
we
>> will need to educate our users on which one to use.
>>
>> Alexandre
>>
>>
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Alexandre Eichenberger, Master Inventor, Advanced Compiler Technologies
>> - research: compiler optimization (OpenMP, multithreading, SIMD)
>> - info: alexe at us.ibm.com http://www.research.ibm.com/people/a/alexe
>> - phone: 914-945-1812 (work) 914-312-3618 (cell)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original message -----
>> From: Andrey Bokhanko via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> Sent by: "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
>> To: Jason Henline <jhen at google.com>
>>
>> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, clang developer list
<
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org"
<
>> openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM
>> subproject for parallelism runtime and support libraries
>> Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 9:23 AM
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Very nice write-up. Well done!
>>
>> My two kopecks (before you asked, one kopeck is the smallest item of
>> currency in Russia ;-)):
>> * Bugzilla and mailing list requirements are not covered. Do you want
to
>> have a component in Bugzilla for each project? One for all of them?
Mailing
>> list -- a separate list for each project? (IMHO, an overkill) One for
all
>> of them?
>> * Build system -- I suppose you expect all of the libs to be built
>> separately, without a single unified cmake file. Correct? Also, I
expect
>> you want all of the libs to be integrated into LLVM build -- correct?
This
>> should be spelled out explicitly.
>> * I don't really like "parallel" in the name. Both SE and
libomptarget
>> are libraries that handle offloading, not parallelism. I understand
other
>> libraries, to be added in the future, might deal with parallelism, but
>> maybe we need a separate project for them? (Something Chris already
>> hinted.) How about "offloading_lib"?
>>
>> Yours,
>> Andrey
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jason Henline via Openmp-dev <
>> openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've put together a proposed "charter" for this new
project, which I am
>> calling parallel_utils (although I'm very open to suggestions for a
better
>> name). The text of my charter is below, and I welcome any input on how
it
>> can be improved.
>>
>>
>> ====================================================>> LLVM
Parallel Utils Subproject Charter
>> ====================================================>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Description
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> The LLVM open source project will contain a subproject named
>> `parallel_utils` which will host the development of libraries which are
>> aimed at enabling parallelism in code and which are also closely tied
to
>> compiler technology.  Examples of libraries suitable for hosting within
the
>> `parallel_utils` subproject are runtime libraries and parallel math
>> libraries. The initial candidates for inclusion in this subproject are
>> StreamExecutor and libomptarget which would live in the
`streamexecutor`
>> and `libomptarget` subdirectories of `parallel_utils`, respectively.
>>
>> The `parallel_utils` project will host a collection of libraries where
>> each library may be dependent on other libraries from the project or
may be
>> completely independent of any other libraries in the project. The
rationale
>> for hosting independent libraries within the same subproject is that
all
>> libraries in the project are providing related functionality that lives
at
>> the intersection of parallelism and compiler technology. It is expected
>> that some libraries which initially began as independent will develop
>> dependencies over time either between existing libraries or by
extracting
>> common code that can be used by each. One of the purposes of this
>> subproject is to provide a working space where such refactoring and
code
>> sharing can take place.
>>
>> Libraries in the `parallel_utils` subproject may also depend on the
LLVM
>> core libraries. This will be useful for avoiding duplication of code
within
>> the LLVM project for common utilities such as those found in the LLVM
>> support library.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Requirements
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Libraries included in the `parallel_utils` subproject must strive to
>> achieve the following requirements:
>>
>> 1. Adhere to the LLVM coding standards.
>> 2. Use the LLVM build and test infrastructure.
>> 3. Be released under LLVM's license.
>>
>>
>> Coding standards
>> ----------------
>> Libraries in `parallel_utils` will match the LLVM coding standards. For
>> existing projects being checked into the subproject as-is, an exception
>> will be made during the initial check-in, with the understanding that
the
>> code will be promptly updated to follow the standards. Therefore, a
three
>> month grace period will be allowed for new libraries to meet the LLVM
>> coding standards.
>>
>> Additional exceptions to strict adherence to the LLVM coding standards
>> may be allowed in certain other cases, but the reasons for such
exceptions
>> must be discussed and documented on a case-by-case basis.
>>
>>
>> LLVM build and test infrastructure
>> ----------------------------------
>> Using the LLVM build and test infrastructure currently means using
>> `cmake` for building, `lit` for testing, and `buildbot` for automating
>> build and testing. This project will follow the main LLVM project
>> conventions here and track them as they evolve.
>>
>>
>> LLVM license
>> ------------
>> For simplicity, the `parallel_utils` project will use the normal LLVM
>> license. While some runtime libraries use a dual license scheme in
LLVM, we
>> anticipate the project removing the need for this eventually and in the
>> interim follow the simpler but still permissive license. Among other
>> things, this makes it straightforward for these libraries to re-use
core
>> LLVM libraries where appropriate.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:52 AM Jason Henline <jhen at
google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Andrey,
>>
>> I may have misunderstood Chandler, but I think it would be good to
house
>> libomptarget together with SE in the new project. I suspect he means to
>> leave the option open for the libomptarget developers to choose the
best
>> option as they see fit.
>>
>> In terms of organization, I would expect the project initially to
contain
>> a StreamExecutor directory and a libomptarget directory where each
project
>> could work separately.
>>
>> When it comes to the difference in review process between the two
>> projects, I don't know the answer. I would expect the new project
to handle
>> reviews similar to the way they are handled in the LLVM project itself,
so
>> I don't know if there would be any difference compared to what is
happening
>> now with libomptarget.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:32 AM C Bergström <openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I respect Hal's more tactful approach and response..
>>
>> Let me play devils advocate for a minute
>>
>> 1) Yet another programming model - Is the advantage spelled out
>> somewhere? (I know there are reasons, but I'd like to see a FAQ or
>> this clearly documented. Examples pretty please.. More for long term
>> than my own selfish benefit)
>> 2) Is this an "open standard" - If I wanted to propose a
major change
>> to SE - how would I or someone else go about it? OpenMP/ACC have more
>> or less clearly defined paths for new features.. What's the
governing
>> policy here.. Bug fixes are easy to deal with, but does Google have
>> final say on the roadmap..
>> 3) When the project is created - will it include lots of good tests?
>> 4) It's probably used internally @google - who else will be using
>> this? Is the target HPC, Android.. etc
>>
>> Lastly - sorry, but I don't like this kick-the-can approach to what
>> should be proper engineering and planning upfront. Can someone @google
>> gentleman's promise to actively work on playing nice with other
>> projects, specifically OpenMP and Intel. From my perspective nothing
>> stops Google from tossing it up on github or google code and letting
>> it stay there until all the pieces are in the correct place. Why it
>> *must* be an llvm project now doesn't make sense to me. When the
shoe
>> was on the other foot (OpenMP) there was all sorts of shit and redtape
>> Intel (and others) had to jump around to get it included. Google has a
>> lot of good karma in the llvm community and maybe that's the
>> difference..
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmp-dev mailing list
>> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmp-dev mailing list
>> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160428/3f0de7fc/attachment.html>

Alexandre,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I was thinking that each subproject
library would be responsible for handling its own name and any associated
branding. For example, when evangelizing for StreamExecutor, I plan to
refer to it as StreamExecutor, not parallel_libs-StreamExecutor or
something like that. So I think it is OK for the top-level container
project to have an undistinguished name. Does that sound reasonable?

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 7:09 AM Alexandre Eichenberger <alexe at
us.ibm.com>
wrote:
> A suggestion on naming: by choosing too generic a name, you don't get
any
> branding.
>
> My point for the omp library: if someone talks about GOMP, KMPC / IOMP, or
> LOMP, they would know we are talking about the GNU, Intel, IBM
> implementation. I don't think we get that with OMP, which was selected
for
> the OMP runtime.
>
> So I would suggest to append "llvm" or "lr" for LLVM
runtime, or something
> distinctive that you like.
>
> This make sense because users will have choices of runtimes, gcc linking
> to GOMP, LLVM runtime, LOMP on POWER; GOMP, LLVM, IOMP on Intel... and we
> will need to educate our users on which one to use.
>
> Alexandre
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Alexandre Eichenberger, Master Inventor, Advanced Compiler Technologies
> - research: compiler optimization (OpenMP, multithreading, SIMD)
> - info: alexe at us.ibm.com http://www.research.ibm.com/people/a/alexe
> - phone: 914-945-1812 (work) 914-312-3618 (cell)
>
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: Andrey Bokhanko via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent by: "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
> To: Jason Henline <jhen at google.com>
>
> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, clang developer list <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org"
<
> openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM
> subproject for parallelism runtime and support libraries
> Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 9:23 AM
>
> Jason,
>
> Very nice write-up. Well done!
>
> My two kopecks (before you asked, one kopeck is the smallest item of
> currency in Russia ;-)):
> * Bugzilla and mailing list requirements are not covered. Do you want to
> have a component in Bugzilla for each project? One for all of them? Mailing
> list -- a separate list for each project? (IMHO, an overkill) One for all
> of them?
> * Build system -- I suppose you expect all of the libs to be built
> separately, without a single unified cmake file. Correct? Also, I expect
> you want all of the libs to be integrated into LLVM build -- correct? This
> should be spelled out explicitly.
> * I don't really like "parallel" in the name. Both SE and
libomptarget are
> libraries that handle offloading, not parallelism. I understand other
> libraries, to be added in the future, might deal with parallelism, but
> maybe we need a separate project for them? (Something Chris already
> hinted.) How about "offloading_lib"?
>
> Yours,
> Andrey
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jason Henline via Openmp-dev <
> openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I've put together a proposed "charter" for this new project,
which I am
> calling parallel_utils (although I'm very open to suggestions for a
better
> name). The text of my charter is below, and I welcome any input on how it
> can be improved.
>
>
> ====================================================> LLVM Parallel
Utils Subproject Charter
> ====================================================>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Description
> ----------------------------------------------
> The LLVM open source project will contain a subproject named
> `parallel_utils` which will host the development of libraries which are
> aimed at enabling parallelism in code and which are also closely tied to
> compiler technology.  Examples of libraries suitable for hosting within the
> `parallel_utils` subproject are runtime libraries and parallel math
> libraries. The initial candidates for inclusion in this subproject are
> StreamExecutor and libomptarget which would live in the `streamexecutor`
> and `libomptarget` subdirectories of `parallel_utils`, respectively.
>
> The `parallel_utils` project will host a collection of libraries where
> each library may be dependent on other libraries from the project or may be
> completely independent of any other libraries in the project. The rationale
> for hosting independent libraries within the same subproject is that all
> libraries in the project are providing related functionality that lives at
> the intersection of parallelism and compiler technology. It is expected
> that some libraries which initially began as independent will develop
> dependencies over time either between existing libraries or by extracting
> common code that can be used by each. One of the purposes of this
> subproject is to provide a working space where such refactoring and code
> sharing can take place.
>
> Libraries in the `parallel_utils` subproject may also depend on the LLVM
> core libraries. This will be useful for avoiding duplication of code within
> the LLVM project for common utilities such as those found in the LLVM
> support library.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Requirements
> ----------------------------------------------
> Libraries included in the `parallel_utils` subproject must strive to
> achieve the following requirements:
>
> 1. Adhere to the LLVM coding standards.
> 2. Use the LLVM build and test infrastructure.
> 3. Be released under LLVM's license.
>
>
> Coding standards
> ----------------
> Libraries in `parallel_utils` will match the LLVM coding standards. For
> existing projects being checked into the subproject as-is, an exception
> will be made during the initial check-in, with the understanding that the
> code will be promptly updated to follow the standards. Therefore, a three
> month grace period will be allowed for new libraries to meet the LLVM
> coding standards.
>
> Additional exceptions to strict adherence to the LLVM coding standards may
> be allowed in certain other cases, but the reasons for such exceptions must
> be discussed and documented on a case-by-case basis.
>
>
> LLVM build and test infrastructure
> ----------------------------------
> Using the LLVM build and test infrastructure currently means using `cmake`
> for building, `lit` for testing, and `buildbot` for automating build and
> testing. This project will follow the main LLVM project conventions here
> and track them as they evolve.
>
>
> LLVM license
> ------------
> For simplicity, the `parallel_utils` project will use the normal LLVM
> license. While some runtime libraries use a dual license scheme in LLVM, we
> anticipate the project removing the need for this eventually and in the
> interim follow the simpler but still permissive license. Among other
> things, this makes it straightforward for these libraries to re-use core
> LLVM libraries where appropriate.
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:52 AM Jason Henline <jhen at google.com>
wrote:
>
> Andrey,
>
> I may have misunderstood Chandler, but I think it would be good to house
> libomptarget together with SE in the new project. I suspect he means to
> leave the option open for the libomptarget developers to choose the best
> option as they see fit.
>
> In terms of organization, I would expect the project initially to contain
> a StreamExecutor directory and a libomptarget directory where each project
> could work separately.
>
> When it comes to the difference in review process between the two
> projects, I don't know the answer. I would expect the new project to
handle
> reviews similar to the way they are handled in the LLVM project itself, so
> I don't know if there would be any difference compared to what is
happening
> now with libomptarget.
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:32 AM C Bergström <openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>
> I respect Hal's more tactful approach and response..
>
> Let me play devils advocate for a minute
>
> 1) Yet another programming model - Is the advantage spelled out
> somewhere? (I know there are reasons, but I'd like to see a FAQ or
> this clearly documented. Examples pretty please.. More for long term
> than my own selfish benefit)
> 2) Is this an "open standard" - If I wanted to propose a major
change
> to SE - how would I or someone else go about it? OpenMP/ACC have more
> or less clearly defined paths for new features.. What's the governing
> policy here.. Bug fixes are easy to deal with, but does Google have
> final say on the roadmap..
> 3) When the project is created - will it include lots of good tests?
> 4) It's probably used internally @google - who else will be using
> this? Is the target HPC, Android.. etc
>
> Lastly - sorry, but I don't like this kick-the-can approach to what
> should be proper engineering and planning upfront. Can someone @google
> gentleman's promise to actively work on playing nice with other
> projects, specifically OpenMP and Intel. From my perspective nothing
> stops Google from tossing it up on github or google code and letting
> it stay there until all the pieces are in the correct place. Why it
> *must* be an llvm project now doesn't make sense to me. When the shoe
> was on the other foot (OpenMP) there was all sorts of shit and redtape
> Intel (and others) had to jump around to get it included. Google has a
> lot of good karma in the llvm community and maybe that's the
> difference..
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160428/e48ec2e3/attachment-0001.html>

I talked to Chandler about the name "offload_libs" vs
"parallel_libs" and
he said he thinks "offload" is too narrow of a term for the scope he
sees
for this subproject. One example he brought up was AVX 512. He thinks that
code explicitly targeting CPU parallelism should also be included in this
project, even though it doesn't fit in the category of
"offloading". So
that is an argument in favor of "parallel_libs" instead of
"offload_libs".

Chandler, please correct me if I misrepresented your thoughts on this.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:55 AM Jason Henline <jhen at google.com> wrote:
> Alexandre,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts on this. I was thinking that each subproject
> library would be responsible for handling its own name and any associated
> branding. For example, when evangelizing for StreamExecutor, I plan to
> refer to it as StreamExecutor, not parallel_libs-StreamExecutor or
> something like that. So I think it is OK for the top-level container
> project to have an undistinguished name. Does that sound reasonable?
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 7:09 AM Alexandre Eichenberger <alexe at
us.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A suggestion on naming: by choosing too generic a name, you don't
get any
>> branding.
>>
>> My point for the omp library: if someone talks about GOMP, KMPC / IOMP,
>> or LOMP, they would know we are talking about the GNU, Intel, IBM
>> implementation. I don't think we get that with OMP, which was
selected for
>> the OMP runtime.
>>
>> So I would suggest to append "llvm" or "lr" for
LLVM runtime, or
>> something distinctive that you like.
>>
>> This make sense because users will have choices of runtimes, gcc
linking
>> to GOMP, LLVM runtime, LOMP on POWER; GOMP, LLVM, IOMP on Intel... and
we
>> will need to educate our users on which one to use.
>>
>> Alexandre
>>
>>
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Alexandre Eichenberger, Master Inventor, Advanced Compiler Technologies
>> - research: compiler optimization (OpenMP, multithreading, SIMD)
>> - info: alexe at us.ibm.com http://www.research.ibm.com/people/a/alexe
>> - phone: 914-945-1812 (work) 914-312-3618 (cell)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original message -----
>> From: Andrey Bokhanko via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> Sent by: "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
>> To: Jason Henline <jhen at google.com>
>>
>> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, clang developer list
<
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org"
<
>> openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM
>> subproject for parallelism runtime and support libraries
>> Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 9:23 AM
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Very nice write-up. Well done!
>>
>> My two kopecks (before you asked, one kopeck is the smallest item of
>> currency in Russia ;-)):
>> * Bugzilla and mailing list requirements are not covered. Do you want
to
>> have a component in Bugzilla for each project? One for all of them?
Mailing
>> list -- a separate list for each project? (IMHO, an overkill) One for
all
>> of them?
>> * Build system -- I suppose you expect all of the libs to be built
>> separately, without a single unified cmake file. Correct? Also, I
expect
>> you want all of the libs to be integrated into LLVM build -- correct?
This
>> should be spelled out explicitly.
>> * I don't really like "parallel" in the name. Both SE and
libomptarget
>> are libraries that handle offloading, not parallelism. I understand
other
>> libraries, to be added in the future, might deal with parallelism, but
>> maybe we need a separate project for them? (Something Chris already
>> hinted.) How about "offloading_lib"?
>>
>> Yours,
>> Andrey
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jason Henline via Openmp-dev <
>> openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've put together a proposed "charter" for this new
project, which I am
>> calling parallel_utils (although I'm very open to suggestions for a
better
>> name). The text of my charter is below, and I welcome any input on how
it
>> can be improved.
>>
>>
>> ====================================================>> LLVM
Parallel Utils Subproject Charter
>> ====================================================>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Description
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> The LLVM open source project will contain a subproject named
>> `parallel_utils` which will host the development of libraries which are
>> aimed at enabling parallelism in code and which are also closely tied
to
>> compiler technology.  Examples of libraries suitable for hosting within
the
>> `parallel_utils` subproject are runtime libraries and parallel math
>> libraries. The initial candidates for inclusion in this subproject are
>> StreamExecutor and libomptarget which would live in the
`streamexecutor`
>> and `libomptarget` subdirectories of `parallel_utils`, respectively.
>>
>> The `parallel_utils` project will host a collection of libraries where
>> each library may be dependent on other libraries from the project or
may be
>> completely independent of any other libraries in the project. The
rationale
>> for hosting independent libraries within the same subproject is that
all
>> libraries in the project are providing related functionality that lives
at
>> the intersection of parallelism and compiler technology. It is expected
>> that some libraries which initially began as independent will develop
>> dependencies over time either between existing libraries or by
extracting
>> common code that can be used by each. One of the purposes of this
>> subproject is to provide a working space where such refactoring and
code
>> sharing can take place.
>>
>> Libraries in the `parallel_utils` subproject may also depend on the
LLVM
>> core libraries. This will be useful for avoiding duplication of code
within
>> the LLVM project for common utilities such as those found in the LLVM
>> support library.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Requirements
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Libraries included in the `parallel_utils` subproject must strive to
>> achieve the following requirements:
>>
>> 1. Adhere to the LLVM coding standards.
>> 2. Use the LLVM build and test infrastructure.
>> 3. Be released under LLVM's license.
>>
>>
>> Coding standards
>> ----------------
>> Libraries in `parallel_utils` will match the LLVM coding standards. For
>> existing projects being checked into the subproject as-is, an exception
>> will be made during the initial check-in, with the understanding that
the
>> code will be promptly updated to follow the standards. Therefore, a
three
>> month grace period will be allowed for new libraries to meet the LLVM
>> coding standards.
>>
>> Additional exceptions to strict adherence to the LLVM coding standards
>> may be allowed in certain other cases, but the reasons for such
exceptions
>> must be discussed and documented on a case-by-case basis.
>>
>>
>> LLVM build and test infrastructure
>> ----------------------------------
>> Using the LLVM build and test infrastructure currently means using
>> `cmake` for building, `lit` for testing, and `buildbot` for automating
>> build and testing. This project will follow the main LLVM project
>> conventions here and track them as they evolve.
>>
>>
>> LLVM license
>> ------------
>> For simplicity, the `parallel_utils` project will use the normal LLVM
>> license. While some runtime libraries use a dual license scheme in
LLVM, we
>> anticipate the project removing the need for this eventually and in the
>> interim follow the simpler but still permissive license. Among other
>> things, this makes it straightforward for these libraries to re-use
core
>> LLVM libraries where appropriate.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:52 AM Jason Henline <jhen at
google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Andrey,
>>
>> I may have misunderstood Chandler, but I think it would be good to
house
>> libomptarget together with SE in the new project. I suspect he means to
>> leave the option open for the libomptarget developers to choose the
best
>> option as they see fit.
>>
>> In terms of organization, I would expect the project initially to
contain
>> a StreamExecutor directory and a libomptarget directory where each
project
>> could work separately.
>>
>> When it comes to the difference in review process between the two
>> projects, I don't know the answer. I would expect the new project
to handle
>> reviews similar to the way they are handled in the LLVM project itself,
so
>> I don't know if there would be any difference compared to what is
happening
>> now with libomptarget.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:32 AM C Bergström <openmp-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I respect Hal's more tactful approach and response..
>>
>> Let me play devils advocate for a minute
>>
>> 1) Yet another programming model - Is the advantage spelled out
>> somewhere? (I know there are reasons, but I'd like to see a FAQ or
>> this clearly documented. Examples pretty please.. More for long term
>> than my own selfish benefit)
>> 2) Is this an "open standard" - If I wanted to propose a
major change
>> to SE - how would I or someone else go about it? OpenMP/ACC have more
>> or less clearly defined paths for new features.. What's the
governing
>> policy here.. Bug fixes are easy to deal with, but does Google have
>> final say on the roadmap..
>> 3) When the project is created - will it include lots of good tests?
>> 4) It's probably used internally @google - who else will be using
>> this? Is the target HPC, Android.. etc
>>
>> Lastly - sorry, but I don't like this kick-the-can approach to what
>> should be proper engineering and planning upfront. Can someone @google
>> gentleman's promise to actively work on playing nice with other
>> projects, specifically OpenMP and Intel. From my perspective nothing
>> stops Google from tossing it up on github or google code and letting
>> it stay there until all the pieces are in the correct place. Why it
>> *must* be an llvm project now doesn't make sense to me. When the
shoe
>> was on the other foot (OpenMP) there was all sorts of shit and redtape
>> Intel (and others) had to jump around to get it included. Google has a
>> lot of good karma in the llvm community and maybe that's the
>> difference..
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmp-dev mailing list
>> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openmp-dev mailing list
>> Openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160509/1703213d/attachment.html>