[UR][CI] Add first version of UR workflow #16827

lukaszstolarczuk · 2025-01-29T12:04:18Z

~~Last commit included just to verify if test_job will be executed.~~

With extra dummy changes (now missing in PR) we just didn't skip the test_job, e.g. here: https://github.com/intel/llvm/actions/runs/13040807649/job/36382037543

.github/workflows/sycl-linux-precommit.yml

.github/workflows/ur-build-hw.yml

kbenzie · 2025-01-29T14:21:38Z

sycl/cmake/modules/UnifiedRuntimeTag.cmake

+# Date:   Wed Jan 22 11:06:11 2025 +0100
+# [common] Bump UMF to early 0.11 version, from main
+# It includes i.a. MacOS fix for compiler.
+set(UNIFIED_RUNTIME_TAG d193046de592482c47d87fdfaf92c7b8c59c9b66)


Is this tag update necessary for the workflow changes?

just a dummy change to trigger sycl changes (in detect_changes job) - replaced now with dummy changes for unified-runtime dir - this commit will be removed before merging, of course

.github/workflows/unified-runtime.yml

kbenzie · 2025-02-04T16:39:50Z

During the meeting we think that we should merge this before the PR which pulls in the UR source code once we have the jobs working correctly. Then, in the time between merging this and pulling in the UR sources we disable the workflow to avoid overloading the runners.

lukaszstolarczuk · 2025-02-07T14:35:17Z

So, FYI, the current status is that the CUDA runner went wild, not sure what happened (I'm betting a bad apt update). Working on reviving the machine, if nothing succeed I'll replace it with a different runner...

lukaszstolarczuk · 2025-02-13T08:02:09Z

there's new CUDA runner enabled, we should be good now.

.github/workflows/ur-build-hw.yml

.github/workflows/ur-precommit.yml

sarnex · 2025-02-13T20:46:21Z

.github/workflows/ur-precommit.yml

+          {name: L0, runner: UR_L0},
+          {name: L0_V2, runner: UR_L0},
+          {name: L0, runner: UR_L0, static: ON},
+          {name: OPENCL, runner: UR_OPENCL, platform: "Intel(R) OpenCL"},


setting the platform name with a string seems error prone, if the spacing or anything is wrong it will fail right? maybe we could use a single word like opencl that, if required, gets updated to the required value for the actual build by the ur-build workflow.

Added TODO.

kbenzie · 2025-02-14T11:44:18Z

Somethings gone wrong with the HIP job https://github.com/intel/llvm/actions/runs/13313402495/job/37182358932?pr=16827

kbenzie · 2025-02-14T12:22:53Z

.github/workflows/ur-build-hw.yml

+    strategy:
+      matrix:
+        adapter: [
+          {
+            name: "${{inputs.adapter_name}}",
+            other_name: "${{inputs.other_adapter_name}}",
+            platform: "${{inputs.platform}}",
+            static_Loader: "${{inputs.static_loader}}",
+            static_adapter: "${{inputs.static_loader}}"
+          }
+        ]
+        build_type: [Release]
+        compiler: [{c: gcc, cxx: g++}]


Can we change this so that if one of the matrix jobs fails it doesn't cancel the rest?

This can be follow up work so shouldn't block merging.

kbenzie · 2025-02-14T15:47:44Z

@sarnex @aelovikov-intel is it correct there's a public holiday in the US on Monday? If so, I would appriciate an approval so that we can merge this once we've addressed the outstanding issues ahead of the repo move on Tuesday.

sarnex · 2025-02-14T15:54:28Z

yeah theres a holiday on mon, discussed it with andrei offline, but please address all feedback in a follow up

kbenzie · 2025-02-14T15:55:32Z

yeah theres a holiday on mon, discussed it with andrei offline, but please address all feedback in a follow up

Yes for sure, thank you!

sarnex · 2025-02-14T15:55:36Z

@kbenzie sorry to be clear, is it okay if i merge this now? we would prefer that to catch any issues while we are working. unaddressed feedback is expected to be addressed in followup pr

sarnex · 2025-02-14T15:56:19Z

oh i see the UR hip is failing, that needs to be fixed or disabled before merging

kbenzie · 2025-02-14T15:56:27Z

@kbenzie sorry to be clear, is it okay if i merge this now? we would prefer that to catch any issues while we are working. unaddressed feedback is expected to be addressed in followup pr

There's an issue with the HIP runner which @lukaszstolarczuk is looking into.

sarnex · 2025-02-14T15:56:52Z

ok cool just ping me when its ready for merge today, or ask a gatekeeper not in US to merge on monday

lukaszstolarczuk · 2025-02-14T16:00:07Z

@kbenzie sorry to be clear, is it okay if i merge this now? we would prefer that to catch any issues while we are working. unaddressed feedback is expected to be addressed in followup pr

I already have some changes implemented locally. For me it's no difference, I can open new PR with changes.
Probably would be better to speed up the process and not block Tuesday's move - so we can merge today.

kbenzie · 2025-02-14T16:00:09Z

If the HIP runner issue isn't resolved until Monday I'll be sure to keep a close eye on things post merge in case something goes awry. Otherwise if you fix it today @lukaszstolarczuk please go ahead with the request to merge.

I need to log off for now, I'll be back online briefly in a few hours to check on things.

kbenzie · 2025-02-14T16:01:36Z

@kbenzie sorry to be clear, is it okay if i merge this now? we would prefer that to catch any issues while we are working. unaddressed feedback is expected to be addressed in followup pr

I already have some changes implemented locally. For me it's no difference, I can open new PR with changes. Probably would be better to speed up the process and not block Tuesday's move - so we can merge today.

Okay, lets keep it separate to derisk the move.

lukaszstolarczuk · 2025-02-14T16:01:36Z

If the HIP runner issue isn't resolved until Monday I'll be sure to keep a close eye on things post merge in case something goes awry. Otherwise if you fix it today @lukaszstolarczuk please go ahead with the request to merge.

I need to log off for now, I'll be back online briefly in a few hours to check on things.

I think I fixed the HIP issue - could you please re-run the HIP job?

kbenzie · 2025-02-14T16:02:21Z

Done, I actually need to go now. Thank you!

Use custom runner names - UR_*

lukaszstolarczuk

I only pushed for now the fail-fast: false and TODO comments. I'm good with following up in the next PR, next week.

@sarnex, If you're good with the few red E2E tests on CI, please merge this.

// UR_HIP machine was now run twice, I believe it's fixed properly.

lukaszstolarczuk · 2025-02-14T14:22:39Z

.github/workflows/ur-build-hw.yml

+    strategy:
+      matrix:
+        adapter: [
+          {
+            name: "${{inputs.adapter_name}}",
+            other_name: "${{inputs.other_adapter_name}}",
+            platform: "${{inputs.platform}}",
+            static_Loader: "${{inputs.static_loader}}",
+            static_adapter: "${{inputs.static_loader}}"
+          }
+        ]
+        build_type: [Release]
+        compiler: [{c: gcc, cxx: g++}]


lukaszstolarczuk · 2025-02-14T14:22:53Z

.github/workflows/ur-build-hw.yml

+        -DUR_DPCXX=${{github.workspace}}/dpcpp_compiler/bin/clang++
+        -DUR_SYCL_LIBRARY_DIR=${{github.workspace}}/dpcpp_compiler/lib
+        -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=${{github.workspace}}/install
+        ${{ matrix.adapter.name == 'HIP' && '-DUR_CONFORMANCE_AMD_ARCH=gfx1030' || '' }}


added to TODO.

lukaszstolarczuk · 2025-02-14T18:52:58Z

.github/workflows/ur-build-hw.yml

+
+    - name: Build
+      # This is so that device binaries can find the sycl runtime library
+      run: cmake --build ${{github.workspace}}/build -j $(nproc)


Added TODO.

lukaszstolarczuk · 2025-02-14T18:53:09Z

.github/workflows/ur-precommit.yml

+          {name: L0, runner: UR_L0},
+          {name: L0_V2, runner: UR_L0},
+          {name: L0, runner: UR_L0, static: ON},
+          {name: OPENCL, runner: UR_OPENCL, platform: "Intel(R) OpenCL"},


Added TODO.

sarnex · 2025-02-14T19:27:25Z

@lukaszstolarczuk So i have a PR here, and it looks like UR CI is running even though it wasn't changed. Is that expected?

lukaszstolarczuk · 2025-02-14T22:15:42Z

in a sense, yes - it was expected - the unified-runtime directory does not yet exist here, so we didn't enable properly the "detect changes" job. I believe @kbenzie's idea was to disable the workflow "Unified Runtime Pre Commit" manually in the GitHub's GUI, but Benie is offline for today ;)

You can go ahead and disable it, please.

I mean "disable workflow" via ... options.
Example:

kbenzie · 2025-02-14T23:32:40Z

I've disabled the workflow for now, good to see it working. I'll reneable it before we the repo move.

lukaszstolarczuk had a problem deploying to WindowsCILock January 29, 2025 12:06 — with GitHub Actions Failure

lukaszstolarczuk had a problem deploying to WindowsCILock January 29, 2025 12:38 — with GitHub Actions Failure

lukaszstolarczuk had a problem deploying to WindowsCILock January 29, 2025 12:54 — with GitHub Actions Failure

lukaszstolarczuk force-pushed the ur-first-workflows branch from f61518c to 7762529 Compare January 29, 2025 13:04

lukaszstolarczuk had a problem deploying to WindowsCILock January 29, 2025 13:04 — with GitHub Actions Failure

kbenzie reviewed Jan 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

lukaszstolarczuk force-pushed the ur-first-workflows branch from 7762529 to f9cecd5 Compare January 29, 2025 21:04

lukaszstolarczuk had a problem deploying to WindowsCILock January 29, 2025 21:04 — with GitHub Actions Error

lukaszstolarczuk force-pushed the ur-first-workflows branch from f9cecd5 to 9a36d44 Compare January 29, 2025 21:08

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock January 29, 2025 21:09 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk had a problem deploying to WindowsCILock January 29, 2025 21:23 — with GitHub Actions Error

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock January 29, 2025 21:30 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock January 29, 2025 21:45 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk force-pushed the ur-first-workflows branch from ba4ea20 to d85dd23 Compare February 3, 2025 15:19

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 3, 2025 15:19 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 3, 2025 15:36 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk force-pushed the ur-first-workflows branch from d85dd23 to 1a68aa0 Compare February 4, 2025 11:49

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 4, 2025 11:50 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 4, 2025 12:08 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk force-pushed the ur-first-workflows branch from 1a68aa0 to c45824f Compare February 12, 2025 22:13

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 12, 2025 22:13 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk had a problem deploying to WindowsCILock February 12, 2025 22:30 — with GitHub Actions Error

lukaszstolarczuk force-pushed the ur-first-workflows branch from c45824f to 4ac5046 Compare February 12, 2025 22:50

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 12, 2025 22:52 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 12, 2025 23:12 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk marked this pull request as ready for review February 13, 2025 08:01

lukaszstolarczuk requested a review from a team as a code owner February 13, 2025 08:01

aelovikov-intel reviewed Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

lukaszstolarczuk force-pushed the ur-first-workflows branch from e0d7e97 to b28c442 Compare February 13, 2025 17:21

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 13, 2025 17:23 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 13, 2025 18:32 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

sarnex reviewed Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

kbenzie reviewed Feb 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

sarnex approved these changes Feb 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

[UR][CI] Add first version of UR workflow

6bb3a12

Use custom runner names - UR_*

lukaszstolarczuk force-pushed the ur-first-workflows branch from b28c442 to 6bb3a12 Compare February 14, 2025 16:36

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 14, 2025 16:37 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk temporarily deployed to WindowsCILock February 14, 2025 17:46 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

sarnex merged commit cbec811 into intel:sycl Feb 14, 2025
24 of 29 checks passed

lukaszstolarczuk deleted the ur-first-workflows branch February 14, 2025 19:06

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[UR][CI] Add first version of UR workflow #16827

[UR][CI] Add first version of UR workflow #16827

lukaszstolarczuk commented Jan 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kbenzie Jan 29, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk Jan 29, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 4, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 7, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 13, 2025

sarnex Feb 13, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk left a comment •

edited

Loading

lukaszstolarczuk Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk Feb 14, 2025

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

[UR][CI] Add first version of UR workflow #16827

[UR][CI] Add first version of UR workflow #16827

Conversation

lukaszstolarczuk commented Jan 29, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kbenzie commented Feb 4, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 7, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025 • edited Loading

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025 • edited Loading

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Feb 14, 2025

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025

lukaszstolarczuk commented Jan 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kbenzie commented Feb 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

sarnex commented Feb 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

lukaszstolarczuk left a comment •

edited

Loading