8000 Use tuning policy as tag for tuning environment by bernhardmgruber · Pull Request #7835 · NVIDIA/cccl · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

Use tuning policy as tag for tuning environment#7835

Open
bernhardmgruber wants to merge 5 commits intoNVIDIA:mainfrom
bernhardmgruber:refactor_transform_tuning_api
Open

Use tuning policy as tag for tuning environment#7835
bernhardmgruber wants to merge 5 commits intoNVIDIA:mainfrom
bernhardmgruber:refactor_transform_tuning_api

Conversation

@bernhardmgruber
Copy link
Contributor
@bernhardmgruber bernhardmgruber commented Feb 27, 2026

This proposes a simplification of how users can define their tunings.

@copy-pr-bot
Copy link
Contributor
copy-pr-bot bot commented Feb 27, 2026

Auto-sync is disabled for draft pull requests in this repository. Workflows must be run manually.

Contributors can view more details about this message here.

@cccl-authenticator-app cccl-authenticator-app bot moved this from Todo to In Progress in CCCL Feb 27, 2026
@bernhardmgruber bernhardmgruber force-pushed the refactor_transform_tuning_api branch 5 times, most recently from 4b91b7f to 9f03fbc Compare March 2, 2026 09:47
@bernhardmgruber bernhardmgruber force-pushed the refactor_transform_tuning_api branch from 5f8bac3 to 57f66ab Compare March 2, 2026 14:12
@bernhardmgruber bernhardmgruber marked this pull request as ready for review March 4, 2026 17:38
@bernhardmgruber bernhardmgruber requested review from a team as code owners March 4, 2026 17:38
@cccl-authenticator-app cccl-authenticator-app bot moved this from In Progress to In Review in CCCL Mar 4, 2026
@bernhardmgruber bernhardmgruber force-pushed the refactor_transform_tuning_api branch from 57f66ab to 692dd1e Compare March 4, 2026 19:33
@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor
github-actions bot commented Mar 9, 2026

😬 CI Workflow Results

🟥 Finished in 2h 15m: Pass: 63%/298 | Total: 8d 13h | Max: 2h 14m | Hits: 78%/170031

See results here.

Copy link
Contributor
@miscco miscco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I repeat, this looks soo much better

< 8000 div class="blob-wrapper border-bottom js-check-hidden-unicode">

return detail::rfa::dispatch<InputIteratorT, OutputIteratorT, offset_t, T, TransformOpT, accum_t, policy_t>(
d_temp_storage, temp_storage_bytes, d_in, d_out, static_cast<offset_t>(num_items), init, stream, transform_op);
return detail::rfa::dispatch<InputIteratorT, OutputIteratorT, offset_t, T, TransformOpT, accum_t>(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Question: Do we actually need the explicit template arguments beyond accum_t?

Suggested change
return detail::rfa::dispatch<InputIteratorT, OutputIteratorT, offset_t, T, TransformOpT, accum_t>(
return detail::rfa::dispatch<accum_t>(

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I need to verify this case by case. There are some algorithms that want to override the accumulator that the dispatch function deduces.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: In Review

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

0