Skip to content

[SYCL] Fix an assertion in graph processor #138

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 16, 2019
Merged

[SYCL] Fix an assertion in graph processor #138

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion sycl/source/detail/scheduler/graph_processor.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Scheduler::GraphProcessor::getWaitList(EventImplPtr Event) {

void Scheduler::GraphProcessor::waitForEvent(EventImplPtr Event) {
Command *Cmd = getCommand(Event);
assert(!Cmd && "Event has no associated command?");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you clarify in the commit message the reason why this assertion is erroneous, please?
Test case would be great too.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems there is just a typo in assert condition:
Should be: assert(Cmd && "Event has no associated command?");

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right, fixed.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it doesn't make sense to write test on this because the problems reproduces on any test which submits commands with asserts enabled.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it doesn't make sense to write test on this because the problems reproduces on any test which submits commands with asserts enabled.

Are you trying to say that this code is already covered by existing LIT tests?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are you trying to say that this code is already covered by existing LIT tests?

Yes, this assertion leads to about 30 LIT test failures in debug mode without this patch.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When asserts are enabled*

assert(Cmd && "Event has no associated command?");
Command *FailedCommand = enqueueCommand(Cmd);
if (FailedCommand)
// TODO: Reschedule commands.
Expand Down