Skip to content

Adding auto-allocation logic for rocfft tests#626

Closed
regan-amd wants to merge 1 commit into
ROCm:developfrom
regan-amd:auto_alloc_rocfft
Closed

Adding auto-allocation logic for rocfft tests#626
regan-amd wants to merge 1 commit into
ROCm:developfrom
regan-amd:auto_alloc_rocfft

Conversation

@regan-amd
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Following up here upon completion of ROCm/hipFFT#160.

Note:

  1. if auto-allocation is used, plans allocate resources at execution for rocFFT whereas thy do it at plan generation for hipFFT;
  2. "default" auto-allocation flag for rocFFT tests is equivalent to "off", while "default" auto-allocation behavior for hipFFT tests is equivalent to "on", consistently with the above;
  3. If "on" auto-allocation flag is used for a rocFFT test, that would force the underlying plan to allocate resources at execution time. It might be best to have a warning printed by bench in that case?

@ammallya
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Imported to ROCm/rocm-libraries

@ammallya ammallya closed this Jul 31, 2025
regan-amd added a commit to ROCm/rocm-libraries that referenced this pull request Aug 27, 2025
Following up here upon completion of
ROCm/hipFFT#160.

Note:
1. if auto-allocation is used, plans allocate resources at execution for
rocFFT whereas they do it at plan generation for hipFFT;
2. "default" auto-allocation flag for rocFFT tests is equivalent to
"off", while "default" auto-allocation behavior for hipFFT tests is
equivalent to "on", consistently with the above;
3. If "on" auto-allocation flag is used for a rocFFT test, that would
force the underlying plan to allocate resources at execution time. It
might be best to have a warning printed by bench in that case?

---
🔁 Imported from
[ROCm/rocFFT#626](ROCm/rocFFT#626)
🧑‍💻 Originally authored by @regan-amd

Co-authored-by: Raphael Egan <Raphael.Egan@amd.com>
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.

2 participants