Skip to content

[SYCL][Doc] Improve wording for GRF sizes#21943

Open
gmlueck wants to merge 2 commits intointel:syclfrom
gmlueck:me/grf-sizes
Open

[SYCL][Doc] Improve wording for GRF sizes#21943
gmlueck wants to merge 2 commits intointel:syclfrom
gmlueck:me/grf-sizes

Conversation

@gmlueck
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@gmlueck gmlueck commented May 6, 2026

Improve the spec wording for the extension that allows applications to choose the GRF size of a kernel.
Also, move to our more modern specification style.

Improve the spec wording for the extension that allows applications to
choose the GRF size of a kernel.
Also, move to our more modern specification style.
@gmlueck gmlueck requested a review from a team as a code owner May 6, 2026 15:17
@YuriPlyakhin
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github has problems with comments per line, so I'll give feedback in general comment:

This extension adds the following properties that can be used when defining a kernel. However, using these properties to select a larger GRF size may impose a lower limit on the kernel’s maximum work-group size.

When I'm reading these statements, after the first sentence, and going to the second I'm expecting to see what the properties are, but they are introduced later. Maybe some description could be added to tell what those following properties are. Otherwise, second sentence is referring to them as "these properties", while they were not yet defined actually. And then to make sense out of it, I need to scan through document further and then return back.

@YuriPlyakhin
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Advanced users may want to increase this size if the kernel is known to need many registers. However, increasing this size may also reduce the maximum work-group size for the kernel.

and later

However, using these properties to select a larger GRF size may impose a lower limit on the kernel’s maximum work-group size.

Information is duplicated, is it possible to provide it in one place?

@gmlueck
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

gmlueck commented May 6, 2026

Thanks for the feedback, @YuriPlyakhin. I tried to address both comments in 101b364. Does this read better?

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