[HIP] Use shuffle for range reduction #3811
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dalg24
reviewed
Feb 25, 2021
dalg24
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2021
|
Retest this please. |
1 similar comment
|
Retest this please. |
|
There was no point in re-running. The failure was clearly unrelated |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Looking at our performance unit test, I noticed that
Time RangePolicy Reduceis significantly slower thanparallel_for. This only happens forRangePolicy,MDRangeandTeamare fine. Using shuffle for Range reduction when the datatype size is known at compile time, I get a speed up of a factor two. This brings the performance ofparallel_reduceRange policy in line withparallel_for. This requires rocm 4.1 because of a register spill bug.