[FEA] Change semantics of RMM memory resource equality comparison

[harrism]

Part of #1443

We plan to adopt cuda::mr::memory_resource concepts as the basis for RMM memory resources. This refactoring will bring flexibility both in building and composing memory resources (e.g. machinery for our stream-ordered pool_memory_resource can be reused for non-device memory as in #1392 ) and for applications by providing them the means to specify the properties of memory resources that their functions expect to be passed (via the cuda::mr::resource_ref property interface).

One effect of this is that cuda::mr::resource_ref equality comparison has different semantics from RMM's current device_memory_resource equality comparison, which mimics std::pmr::memory_resource. The semantics of this are defined here:

Two memory_resources compare equal if and only if memory allocated from one memory_resource can be deallocated from the other and vice versa.

In contrast, two cuda::mr::resource_refs compare equal only if they have the same equality function pointer, and calling that function on the two resource_refs returns true.

Arguably, the std::pmr semantics are more useful, because, for example, one might allocate memory with a logging_memory_resource<cuda_memory_resource> (A logging MR with its upstream MR being a CUDA MR), but later need to deallocate the memory with just a cuda_memory_resource, and these two will compare equal because the upstream of the former compares equal to the latter.

However, these semantics are difficult to support within the cuda::mr design. Because it is based on concepts, rather than inheritance, there is no base class (unlike std::pmr and rmm::mr::device_memory_resource). Without a base class, we can't dynamic_cast, which makes it hard to do the kind of compatibility comparison described above. RTTI-based solutions may be possible, but we don't necessarily want to require RTTI for RMM.

The concept-based approach does not preclude an inheritance hierarchy as we currently have in RMM. However, one of the advantages of moving to refactor to the concept approach is that libraries can provide pluggable memory interfaces based only on a (fairly lightweight) semi-standard (hopefully someday) like cuda::mr::resource_ref without requiring RMM and instead of defining their own plugin interface.

This was discussed during the design sessions for cuda::mr and no strong opinions were held on the issues above and the designers felt reasonably OK with diverging from std::pmr here.

I wanted to open this up for discussion. First, I want to find out if anyone relies on the "compatibility" equality comparison semantics currently built in RMM. My hunch is that few if any do. Please comment below on this question and then we can move on to discussing options.

[bdice]

I'm not aware of any code in libcudf (or in RAPIDS generally) that depends on particular semantics of memory resource equality. I know of no issues from changing semantics as described above. Absence of evidence != evidence of absence, of course, but I hope this is helpful.

[harrism]

Thanks @bdice . I also did some searching of the main RAPIDS repos.

• I see various comparisons of device_memory_resource* to nullptr, which is not using the operator==, so that's not an issue.
• I see RAFT explicitly calling is_equal which does exercise the code path, but the code is planned to be removed according to @cjnolet .
• I see RAFT keeping a std::vector of std::shared_ptr<device_memory_resource>, and also places in RMM's gtests that have vectors of resources, but this should not use the operator==. I would be worried if there were uses of std::set or std::map.

[harrism]

The usage in RAFT has been removed.