Hi Junchao,
I recall that Jed already suggested to make this a bitmask ~7 years ago ;-)
On the other hand: If we touch valid_GPU_array, then we should also use
a better name or refactor completely. Code like
(V->valid_GPU_array & PETSC_OFFLOAD_GPU)
simply isn't intuitive (nor does it make sense) when read aloud.
Best regards,
Karli
On 10/2/19 5:24 AM, Zhang, Junchao via petsc-dev wrote:
Stafano recently modified the following code,
PetscErrorCode VecCreate_SeqCUDA(Vec V)
{
PetscErrorCode ierr;
PetscFunctionBegin;
ierr = PetscLayoutSetUp(V->map);CHKERRQ(ierr);
ierr = VecCUDAAllocateCheck(V);CHKERRQ(ierr);
ierr =
VecCreate_SeqCUDA_Private(V,((Vec_CUDA*)V->spptr)->GPUarray_allocated);CHKERRQ(ierr);
ierr = VecCUDAAllocateCheckHost(V);CHKERRQ(ierr);
ierr = VecSet(V,0.0);CHKERRQ(ierr);
ierr = VecSet_Seq(V,0.0);CHKERRQ(ierr);
V->valid_GPU_array = PETSC_OFFLOAD_BOTH;
PetscFunctionReturn(0);
}
That means if one creates an SEQCUDA vector V and then immediately tests
if (V->valid_GPU_array == PETSC_OFFLOAD_GPU), the test will fail. That
is counterintuitive. I think we should have
enum
{PETSC_OFFLOAD_UNALLOCATED=0x0,PETSC_OFFLOAD_GPU=0x1,PETSC_OFFLOAD_CPU=0x2,PETSC_OFFLOAD_BOTH=0x3}
and then use if (V->valid_GPU_array & PETSC_OFFLOAD_GPU). What do you think?
--Junchao Zhang
