-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 178
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Parallel scheduler -- incorporate feedback from LEWG in Hagenberg #1485
Conversation
One can replace different specialization of `query_system_context`. The runtime setter for system context (`set_system_context_backend`) is visible and can be specialized.
Instead of having a dedicated parameter of type `env`, the receiver environment is now exposed thorough `receiver`. We don't need to store any extra data in the operation state, and the receiver can be queried at any time for receiver environment properties.
…r_backend` plain function. Same for the setter, but also mark it as "out of spec".
(and associated types) Anonymized some types that are not named by the design.
/ok to test |
Hoping that msvc will allow it to be `constinit`.
@ericniebler : this is ready for review / CI check. Thank you very much! (after this, I'm planning another PR that makes changes to |
|
||
/// Returns a scheduler that can add work to the underlying execution context. | ||
auto get_system_scheduler() -> system_scheduler; | ||
auto get_parallel_scheduler() -> parallel_scheduler; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can you pls add back a (deprecated) get_system_scheduler()
function?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done. thank you.
/ok to test |
@lucteo stdexec is currently broken on gcc-14/15 because the new system context is trying to |
@ericniebler : can you please retrigger the the GPU build in the hope that it will pass? (it seems that there is some problems there, as this is not the first time I see the CI failing in the same way) |
i've been retrying it. this is attempt # 15. it is caused by a known internal nvidia networking issue (the gpu runners are hosted by nvidia). it's been like this for weeks. the issue is being worked on. until then, i'll keep re-running the tests until they pass, or just force-land it. |
Incorporate the feedback from LEWG in Hagenberg, except the changes related to bulk (P3481), which will come as a later PR.
Mainly renames; minor changes to the API.