So Jed's "everyone" now consists of "no one" and Jed can stop complaining that "everyone" thinks it is a bad idea.
> On Jan 5, 2023, at 11:50 PM, Junchao Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:32 PM Barry Smith <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jan 5, 2023, at 3:42 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Mark Adams <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> writes: >> > >> >> Support of HIP and CUDA hardware together would be crazy, >> > >> > I don't think it's remotely crazy. libCEED supports both together and it's >> > very convenient when testing on a development machine that has one of each >> > brand GPU and simplifies binary distribution for us and every package that >> > uses us. Every day I wish PETSc could build with both simultaneously, but >> > everyone tells me it's silly. >> >> Not everyone at all; just a subset of everyone. Junchao is really the >> hold-out :-) > I am not, instead I think we should try (I fully agree it can ease binary > distribution). But satish needs to install such a machine first :) > There are issues out of our control if we want to mix GPUs in execution. For > example, how to do VexAXPY on a cuda vector and a hip vector? Shall we do it > on the host? Also, there are no gpu-aware MPI implementations supporting > messages between cuda memory and hip memory. >> >> I just don't care about "binary packages" :-); I think they are an archaic >> and bad way of thinking about code distribution (but yes the alternatives >> need lots of work to make them flawless, but I think that is where the work >> should go in the packaging world.) >> >> I go further and think one should be able to automatically use a CUDA >> vector on a HIP device as well, it is not hard in theory but requires >> thinking about how we handle classes and subclasses a little to make it >> straightforward; or perhaps Jacob has fixed that also? >
