Skip to content

Rocm 5.2 release integration#31591

Merged
alalazo merged 25 commits intospack:developfrom
renjithravindrankannath:rocm-5.2-release-integration
Aug 12, 2022
Merged

Rocm 5.2 release integration#31591
alalazo merged 25 commits intospack:developfrom
renjithravindrankannath:rocm-5.2-release-integration

Conversation

@renjithravindrankannath
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@renjithravindrankannath renjithravindrankannath commented Jul 15, 2022

This PR contains changes for ROCM 5.2.0 release.
Additional changes for hipify-clang and rocm-openmp-extras will be under different PR

@renjithravindrankannath
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

renjithravindrankannath commented Jul 15, 2022

Installed all component successfully.
[email protected]

Unit test result in hip below.
hip_test_logs.txt

rocm-bandwidth-test result below.
rocm-bandwidth-test_test_logs.txt

@srekolam srekolam requested review from haampie and srekolam July 18, 2022 18:41
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@srekolam srekolam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

request the changes

renjithravindrankannath added a commit to renjithravindrankannath/spack that referenced this pull request Jul 20, 2022
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cgmb cgmb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There's just one more thing in the rocblas package that I see.

cgmb
cgmb previously approved these changes Jul 20, 2022
srekolam
srekolam previously approved these changes Jul 20, 2022
cgmb
cgmb previously approved these changes Jul 20, 2022
srekolam
srekolam previously approved these changes Jul 20, 2022
@renjithravindrankannath renjithravindrankannath dismissed stale reviews from srekolam and cgmb via 1775f9b July 21, 2022 01:04
srekolam
srekolam previously approved these changes Jul 25, 2022
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@srekolam srekolam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!!

cgmb
cgmb previously approved these changes Jul 25, 2022
@srekolam
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

srekolam commented Jul 25, 2022

@haampie , @tldahlgren can you approve this PR and let us know if this can be merged

@srekolam
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@haampie or @tldahlgren can you approve this PR. i am planning to get 5.2.1 after this PR merge.

@renjithravindrankannath renjithravindrankannath dismissed stale reviews from cgmb and srekolam via 70373ac July 28, 2022 00:09
cgmb
cgmb previously approved these changes Jul 28, 2022
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cgmb cgmb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would be nice to get #31450 merged so that changes like these are automatically tested.

srekolam
srekolam previously approved these changes Jul 28, 2022
srekolam
srekolam previously approved these changes Aug 5, 2022
@srekolam
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

srekolam commented Aug 6, 2022

@alalazo or @tldahlgren can we get this merged now

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@alalazo alalazo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I did a first pass at reading the PR. I didn't comment on each place since I think there would be a lot of repetitions in my comments. Basically:

  1. There are a lot of patches that I'd really like to see moving upstream
  2. The patch directives usually don't have comments to explain what they do, who produced the patch etc.
  3. The patches themselves don't have provenance

This wouldn't make life easy for whomever reads these package.py next. Can we handle these issues?

Note that I didn't comment on functional changes, since I don't know much about the rocm stack, so I'll defer that to other maintainers/core-developers.

args.append("-DGINKGO_HIP_AMDGPU={0}".format(arch_str))
if spec.satisfies("^[email protected]:"):
args.append(
"-DCMAKE_MODULE_PATH={0}/".format(self.spec["hip"].prefix.lib.cmake.hip)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is the additional / needed?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Removed the / in the recipe.

Comment on lines +222 to +228
when="@5.0.2:5.1.3",
)

patch(
"0012-Improve-compilation-without-git-repo-and-remove-compiler-rt-linkage-for-host"
".5.2.0.patch",
when="@5.2.0:",
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same comments as above:

  1. It would be better is this is fixed upstream
  2. In any case a comment explaining what the patch does, why is it needed and where it was taken from is welcome to help the next reader of package.py

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@alalazo I have been working with the team to get this changes into the next release . While 5.2.1 will not have this change, i would see that this is addressed in 5.3.0 release.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The compilation without git was fixed in ROCm/hipamd@56b3260 and is on track for ROCm 5.3. If you have a fix for the rt linkage, that's great!

the new patches applied in rocm components
srekolam
srekolam previously approved these changes Aug 9, 2022
@srekolam srekolam requested a review from alalazo August 9, 2022 14:22
@renjithravindrankannath
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hi @alalazo ,
I have added the changes as per you review comment. Could you please review and approve if everything is good.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@alalazo alalazo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changing the maintainers and adding tags can be extracted to a separate PR. I think that wouldn't require a lot of reviews to be merged. There are other comments below, always related to patches.

If I understand correctly this package is maintained by AMD people. May I ask why AMD is releasing versions of the Rocm stack that are then heavily patched afterwards in Spack?

url = "https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROC-smi/archive/rocm-4.1.0.tar.gz"

maintainers = ["srekolam", "arjun-raj-kuppala"]
maintainers = ["srekolam", "renjithravindrankannath"]
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Change in maintainers and tags can be a separate PR.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@haampie haampie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a few comments:
1.Please use define(var, val) and for ON/OFF you can use Python's booleans so that you get -Dvar:BOOL=val.
2. If you wanna change the behavior at 5.2.0, then use @:5.1 for < 5.2.0 and @5.2.0: for >= 5.2.0 so there's no possible versions between 5.1.3 - 5.2.0 (which guards against someone adding a 5.1.3-my-custom-version suffix or so).

@renjithravindrankannath
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@alalazo , @haampie
Updated based on the review comments and all checks have passed.
Please review and approve if no more changes required.

@alalazo alalazo merged commit 08e75f7 into spack:develop Aug 12, 2022
@renjithravindrankannath renjithravindrankannath deleted the rocm-5.2-release-integration branch August 12, 2022 16:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.