Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon's ROCm OpenCL Runtime Finally Open-Sourced

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    dungeon please stop wasting other's free time, and please stop pollute that thread with fallacies and lies. And please listen when people answers to you the answers you need. No one said you need me to read the answer they made to you.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by Marc.2377 View Post
      1) Can ROCm OpenCL be made to work with older cards, even back to the Southern Islands family?
      Two part answer... ROCm itself requires the MEC block found in CI and up (we support Hawaii today) so running ROCm on CI parts is certainly doable in principle. Each generation back requires additional compiler and runtime work in OpenCL, however, so OpenCL support doesn't come for free just because CI runs on it.

      Going back to SI would require larger changes, essentially bypassing the current ROCm kernel/runtime interface and submitting work via kernel calls.

      Originally posted by Marc.2377 View Post
      2) Is support for OpenCL v2.0+ in the works? 1.2 runtime is... less than ideal nowadays.
      AFAIK the current support is a hybrid of 1.2 and 2.0 - kernel language support is 2.0 while runtime feature set is 1.2. The current level of support was based on our understanding of what developers actually use / plan to use so I imagine any changes would be driven by that.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by bridgman View Post
        AFAIK the current support is a hybrid of 1.2 and 2.0 - kernel language support is 2.0 while runtime feature set is 1.2. The current level of support was based on our understanding of what developers actually use / plan to use so I imagine any changes would be driven by that.
        It's a two way relationship. For instance, people wouldn't make/plan to use of C++ if all available compilers supported just C.

        Btw, OpenCL 2.2 was finalized today.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by dungeon
          I knew you are total disrespectful, first response to me and like that... fuck you moron and your fucking shitty matrix
          Everyone but you have read the very-dedicated 1000 words comment I wrote for you.

          As stated, I didn't have to answer to your statements since others did. You polluted a thread up to 7 page to request me something others already did for you (it's a kind of harassment), and when I gave time to answer you, you just don't read the answer you asked for but said “I knew you are […]”, throwing insults in a row.

          It's time for you to to look stupid and to apologize.
          Last edited by illwieckz; 05-16-2017, 01:41 PM.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by ekondis View Post
            It's a two way relationship. For instance, people wouldn't make/plan to use of C++ if all available compilers supported just C.
            True... but we implemented OpenCL 2.0 across the board back in early 2015 and none of the other vendors did anything... so pretty much all of the real world apps ended up being stuck at 1.2 level. Other vendors are finally starting to work on 2.0 support so I expect this will change eventually.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by bridgman View Post

              True... but we implemented OpenCL 2.0 across the board back in early 2015 and none of the other vendors did anything... so pretty much all of the real world apps ended up being stuck at 1.2 level. Other vendors are finally starting to work on 2.0 support so I expect this will change eventually.
              Right. The hope was that the industry would follow the pioneer and not that the pioneer would step back to be aligned with the rest.

              Let's hope that will change.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by ekondis View Post
                Right. The hope was that the industry would follow the pioneer and not that the pioneer would step back to be aligned with the rest. Let's hope that will change.
                Yeah, sometimes it actually works out that way

                That said, we didn't actually "step back" as much as "started from zero with a new low-level driver framework and haven't stepped all the way forward yet" since nobody seemed to be using the last few features.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by dungeon View Post
                  And indeed it is software
                  it is not software for your cpu. it is software for some remote cpu like phoronix forum software

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by bridgman View Post

                    (...)
                    Going back to SI would require larger changes, essentially bypassing the current ROCm kernel/runtime interface and submitting work via kernel calls.
                    (...)
                    Appreciate your answer. Do you think that a good C programmer and linux power user, however with no previous experience in kernel development, would be able to tackle on this, or is the idea too far-fetched? Although from reading what you said here I do believe this would be more sane than trying to improve the existing clover implementation.


                    Originally posted by bridgman View Post

                    True... but we implemented OpenCL 2.0 across the board back in early 2015 and none of the other vendors did anything... so pretty much all of the real world apps ended up being stuck at 1.2 level. Other vendors are finally starting to work on 2.0 support so I expect this will change eventually.
                    I'm just now really learning proper gpu programming, though in the past I've ported some OpenCL programs from Linux to Windows. In the book "Programming Massively Parallel Processors", which I'm reading now, the author says that the book is not based on OpenCL (but CUDA instead) because OpenCL was in its infancy when the book was written (my copy's from 2010-2011). I have a friend who is/was a CUDA programmer and he basically told me the same thing a few years ago. In my opinion Shared Virtual Memory was a major step forward, and now clCloneKernel and specially C++ support in OpenCL kernels (albeit not strictly complete) are even more compelling. I just hope you guys at AMD do not "regret" by any means from leading innovation, let alone refrain from continuing to do so.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Libre is about fully understanding what is going on, so protection can be increased. If it's just all open source, I'd label it "false libre".

                      So how's the protection against viruses like https://www.extremetech.com/computin...tem-activities ? Can any (invected) software read and write the firmware blob?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X