Skip to content
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

x86-64-v2, main branch (2024.10.24.) #751

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2024

Conversation

krasznaa
Copy link
Member

Use -march=x86-64-v2 for the build when appropriate. While still allowing builds to use something more aggressive, like:

CXXFLAGS="-march=native" cmake ...

This was triggered by recent discussions about vectorization. So I thought we might as well use the same code for this that the ATLAS offline build uses. 🤔

https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas/atlasexternals/-/blob/main/Build/AtlasCMake/modules/AtlasCompilerSettings.cmake?ref_type=heads#L103

@krasznaa krasznaa added the build This relates to the build system label Oct 24, 2024
Copy link
Member

@stephenswat stephenswat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I mean, sure; but let's then also turn this on for OneAPI's x86 targets so we don't end up compiling our host code and our x86-target SYCL code for different architectures.

@stephenswat
Copy link
Member

Also, x86-64-v3 has been around for well over a decade now, so to me it makes sense to target that. 😛

@krasznaa
Copy link
Member Author

For v3: We could, but at the moment we only use v2 on the grid with the ATLAS code. That's why I went with v2 out of the box. Again, one can set something more aggressive in local tests. But for the ATLAS offline code we've seen practically no improvement with more aggressive settings.

For SYCL: Do you have a suggestion? 😕 Right now, building SYCL code is still sort of an expert task. Asking people to set up, among other things, the $SYCLFLAGS environment variable in a non-trivial way to make the build do exactly what they want. That by itself is a complicated enough procedure that it would be hard to tweak the settings safely from the project's CMake code.

@krasznaa krasznaa force-pushed the X86V2-main-20241024 branch from 0cd73cc to 58c9a10 Compare October 24, 2024 20:07
Copy link

@stephenswat
Copy link
Member

For SYCL: Do you have a suggestion? 😕 Right now, building SYCL code is still sort of an expert task. Asking people to set up, among other things, the $SYCLFLAGS environment variable in a non-trivial way to make the build do exactly what they want. That by itself is a complicated enough procedure that it would be hard to tweak the settings safely from the project's CMake code.

I don't think it needs to be so complicated; if we slap a -match=whatever flag on the SYCL flags we'll get architectural support for at least the host code, and hopefully also for whatever device code is compiled with x86_64 SYCL targets.

@stephenswat stephenswat merged commit 36be249 into acts-project:main Oct 25, 2024
23 checks passed
@krasznaa krasznaa deleted the X86V2-main-20241024 branch October 30, 2024 10:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
build This relates to the build system
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants