Should enqueue_write_buffer() etc. be fully blocking/sync?

[jszuppe]

If you look at enqueue_write_buffer() implementation (and other writes methods without _async suffix), you can think that all those operations are 100% blocking, i.e., they do not return until memory pointed to by host_ptr has been copied into the buffer. However, that's not true.

In the OpenCL specification clEnqueueWriteBuffer only promises: If blocking_write is CL_TRUE, the OpenCL implementation copies the data referred to by ptr and enqueues the write operation in the command-queue. The memory pointed to by ptr can be reused by the application after the clEnqueueWriteBuffer call returns.

In other words, it is blocking is a sense that it can return only after it has made sure that the memory pointed by ptr can be reused by the application. It can just internally copy the memory pointed by ptr to some temporary host buffer and return immediately after that. That's what Intel's OpenCL platform does for CPU devices (and I don't know any other implementation that behaves that way).

Usually it's not a problem, because user typically has one in-order command queue. However, if you write to and read from buffer using different command queues, you have a race condition. In Boost.Compute it might happen quite often, because for operator[]s and in iterators we construct temporary command queues based on context of underlying buffer.

In commit 0f5c49d I fixed that problem for writing using operator[] and iterators, which fixes situations like:

bc::vector<int> vector(10, context);
vector[0] = 3;
if(vector[0] == 3) // 100% sure it will be 3 at the time of read
{
...
}

, but code like this:

bc::vector<int> vector(context);
vector.push_back(3, queue);
vector.at(0); // does not have to be 3 at the time of read

still has a race condition (in some OpenCL implementations, currently I know this happens only on Intel).

The question is if we should make enqueue_write_buffer() and other write methods in command_queue fully, 100% blocking, which would require waiting on an event returned by write calls like clEnqueueWriteBuffer.

[Ulfgard]

Hi,

I stumbled across this exact problem in my own code when creating an array of size one and read/write to the element with operator[]. For this exact case, there is already another issue here #643 .
//edit also relevant: #707 and #690.

From the OpenCL point of view, reading or writing to the same object from different queues is fundamentally broken, because the runtime does not, and can not, put any guarantees here. The issue is not that clEnqueueWriteBuffer does not fully complete, this is fine according to the runtime model and will never fail as long as there are not multiple queues modifying the same objects. The expectation of the user should be that he can free the memory on his end, nothing more.

Also, to guarantee that this works, ALL reads and writes must be fully blocking because of the race conditions you mentioned. And this means fundamentally: All operations have to block, because in the case of:

algorithm1(container.begin(),container.end(),queue);
container[0]=val;
algorithm2(container.begin(),container.end(),queue);
val=container[0];

The only thing that is guaranteed is that algorithm2 is executed after algorithm1 (in an in-order-queue, of course). And i think it is also not guaranteed that the write to the container can not happen while the kernel of algorithm1 is running(in case it starts before the write). I have no idea how to do any of this when feeding the queue from multiple threads.

Note that the situation becomes even more severe in out-of-order queues where the queue is allowed to do reordering of operations which might also lead to an reordering of memory transfers. Here forcing the blocking to be a full block could essentially kill any advantage of out-of-order computations.

From my perspective the issue lies with the containers not being assigned to a queue. One might argue that buffers in OpenCL are not bound to a queue, so why should containers be; however, no operation can be performed without a queue, so why should container be allowed to do this, or even worse: construct their own?

So the solution should be that containers behave like:

1. not giving a queue results in the container using the default queue of the device. It should never result in using an arbitrary newly constructed queue. This will be okay for the majority of cases where operations only happen on a single queue.
2. changing the queue should result in all operations being done on the queue

[jszuppe]

The issue is not that clEnqueueWriteBuffer does not fully complete, this is fine according to the runtime model and will never fail as long as there are not multiple queues modifying the same objects.

There is an issue. The description of blocking write in clEnqueueWriteBuffer is clear, however, unfortunately, other parts of the OpenCL API specification describe different behaviour for blocking operations. For example:

For blocking commands, the OpenCL API functions that enqueue commands don’t return until the command has completed.

Blocking Commands: A blocking command defines a synchronization point between the unit of execution that calls the blocking API function and the enqueued command reaching the complete state.

That's why there was [is?] a confusion, hence my question.

From the OpenCL point of view, reading or writing to the same object from different queues is fundamentally broken, because the runtime does not, and can not, put any guarantees here.

It would not say it's broken. The synchronisation in such situations (i.e. when using async operations) is a user's responsibility. I don't know how it would effect performance if you would like OpenCL platform to do all this. I would not like to add any new guarantees into Boost.Compute, except those that are in OpenCL.

From my perspective the issue lies with the containers not being assigned to a queue.

Storing a queue in containers is an idea worth consideration. I agree that creating a lot of command queues with very short lifetime is not the best solution. I was thinking about this [storing queue in bc::vector] for some time, but there are some problem and I didn't have time to find good solution for them. for example: there is no such thing as "a default queue of the device", so what should we do when user uses ctor with context (!= system::default_context())?

[Ulfgard]

for example: there is no such thing as "a default queue of the device", so what should we do when user uses ctor with context (!= system::default_context())?

I would introduce a breaking change that vectors are created from a queue instead of a context. So either it is the default queue=default context or the user has to provide the queue (and thus the context).

[jszuppe]

I would introduce a breaking change that vectors are created from a queue instead of a context. So either it is the default queue=default context or the user has to provide the queue (and thus the context).

I understand, so no ctor from context. I guess it would simplify many things. However, you realise that it does not help with many command queues problem (when user use async operations). Code like:

// container create with queue1
algorithm(container.begin(), container.end(), queue2); // async
container[0] = val; // queue1

would still have a race condition.

[Ulfgard]

Yes, this is true. But I consider this case as very rare. Having multiple queues in the same context is already a quite academic use-case and then having several objects shared between queues is even more unlikely. This is because we have Out-of-Order queues which are designed for this task.

We could just add a small helper like:

algorithm(container.begin(), container.end(), queue2); // async
on_queue(container,queue2)[0] = val; // executed on queue2

I find it more dangerous from the point of view of Out-Of-Order queues, that we do not get an event from the assignment.