Step restarting on unavailable get

Step restarting on unavailable get

Hello!I'm coding in CnC and have a step which does an unbounded number of gets, and may block in any of them.Is there any way to avoid aborting and restarting the step on a blocking get?Regards,

4 posts / 0 nouveau(x)
Dernière contribution
Reportez-vous à notre Notice d'optimisation pour plus d'informations sur les choix et l'optimisation des performances dans les produits logiciels Intel.
Best Reply

There are (at least) two options.

1. Depends
pre-declare the data dependencies in the depends-method of your tuner. The step will not get executed until all declared dependencies are stasfied. See formore detailedexplanation. Other examples in the samples directory using this feature arematrix_inverse/matrix_inverse, fib/fib_tuner, rtm_stencil/halo
2. unsafe gets
Use unsafe_get instead of get to get items and before using any of the itemsput a call to context::flush_gets(). The runtime will call call the steps twice, the second time will be triggered when all items are available. To further reduce scheduling overhead, you can provide a tuner with prescheduling enabled (see

Note: both solutions don't work if your gets are data-dependent, e.g. if one get depends on a previous get.

Does this help?


Thanks for your answer!I'm afraid my gets are data-dependent, so I might have to try adifferent approach.I'll investigate the options you mention anyway, as I might reformulate my current code to apply those.Regards,Gervasio

Is your access pattern a single chain of dependent gets?
Unsafe_get/flush_gets can help if data-itemsare used to get more than a single other item or if there are several independent data-chains?

Here's an example where unsafe_get/flush_gets can help:

a = get(tag)
b = get(a)
c = get(a+1)
cc= get(a+2)
d = get(c)
dd= get(cc)
e= get(c+1)
ee= get(cc+1)
f = get(c+2)
ff = get(cc+2)

Herewe can limit the maximum number of re-schedules to the number of items actually needed to get other items, by calling flush_gets() when we use a "newly got" item the first time (one can call flush_gets more than once!). In this example it would lead to at most4 re-schedules(3 with pre-scheduling), down from 10. The actual number might in factbe much lower dependent onthe concurrency in your application.The above example would look like this

a = unsafe_get(tag)
ctxt.flush_gets() //don't pass this lineunless 'a' is available
b = unsafe_get(a)
c = unsafe_get(a+1)
cc= unsafe_get(a+2)
ctxt.flush_gets() // don't pass this this line unless 'c' and 'cc'are available (as well as 'b')
d= unsafe_get(c)
dd= unsafe_get(cc)
e= unsafe_get(c+1)
ee = unsafe_get(cc+1)
f = unsafe_get(c+2)
ff = unsafe_get(cc+2)

Hope this helps


ps: Your problem looks very interesting.Is it possible that youtell us a little moreabout your usage-pattern and/or your application (potentially in a less public context)?

Laisser un commentaire

Veuillez ouvrir une session pour ajouter un commentaire. Pas encore membre ? Rejoignez-nous dès aujourd’hui