RFC to design a unified oneDPL approach to asynchrony

rfcs/proposed/asynchronous_api_general/readme.md

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+# General support for asynchronous API
+
+## Introduction
+
+oneDPL algorithms with device execution policies are developed on top of SYCL, and since the early
+days there was some demand for the algorithms to preserve the SYCL ability of computing
+asynchronously to the main program running on the host CPU. However the C++ standard semantics for
+parallel algorithms, which oneDPL follows, does not assume asynchronous execution, as the calling
+thread can only return when the algorithm finishes (for details, see [algorithms.parallel.exec]
+section of the C++ standard).
+
+To address this demand, experimental [asynchronous algorithms](https://oneapi-src.github.io/oneDPL/parallel_api/async_api.html)
+have been added. These functions do not block the calling thread but instead return a *future* that
+can be used to synchronize and obtain the computed value at a later time. These algorithms can also
+accept a list of `sycl::event` objects as *input dependencies* (though the implementation has not
+advanced beyond immediate wait on these events). The `wait_for_all` function waits for completion
+of a given list of events or futures.
+
+Later the experimental functionality for [dynamic selection](https://oneapi-src.github.io/oneDPL/dynamic_selection_api_main.html)
+of an execution device has been added. The `submit` function there executes a user-specified
+function object, which can start asynchronous work and return a *waitable* object
+to synchronize later with. There is a `wait` function to wait for such an object as well.
+
+For these experimental APIs to get solid and go into production, there is a clear need for a single
+consistent approach to asynchronous execution. Defining that is the goal of this RFC proposal.
+
+## The use cases
+
+In the practical use of the oneDPL asynchronous APIs as well as similar APIs of other libraries
+(such as Thrust) we observed several typical patterns, pseudocode examples of which follow.
+**The proposal is aimed primarily at supporting these very patterns**. The list can be extended
+if there is enough evidence of demand for other patterns of asynchronous compute.
+
+In the examples, `foo-async` represents a call such as oneDPL `for_each_async` and `submit`
+functions that start some asynchronous work, and `sync-with` indicates a synchronization
+point with previously started asynchronous work.
+
+### 1. Synchronize with a single call
+
+This is the basic use case where the main program invokes a function asynchronously and later waits
+for its completion via the returned object.
+
+```
+/* start asynchronous work */
+sync-object s = foo-async(/*arguments*/);
+/* do some other work */
+...
+/* synchronize */
+sync-with(s);
+```
+
+ Variations of the pattern are supported by many APIs including `std::thread` and `std::async`.
+ Some of the APIs do not guarantee that the execution of `foo-async` is actually done simultaneously
+ with the main program; it might get *deferred* till the synchronization point. However the usage
+ of oneDPL asynchronous APIs, and specifically those that work with or on top of SYCL, likely
+ assumes that the execution is *eager*, not deferred.
+
+### 2. Synchronize with a work queue
+
+This pattern is specifically common for *heterogeneous* APIs that offload the execution to
+another compute device such as a GPU. Usually devices are represented by *queues* or *streams*
+where the work can be submitted to. The main program then waits for completion of all work
+previously submitted to a queue.
+
+```
+work-queue q{/*initialization arguments*/};
+/* submit work to the queue* /
+foo-async(q, /*arguments*/);
+bar-async(q, /*arguments*/);
+...
+/* synchronize */
+sync-with(q);
+```
+
+The work queue is shown explicitly in this pseudocode example, but in real APIs it might be
+implicit as well if a default device is assumed. Note also that, unlike the first example,
+asynchronous calls are not expected to return a synchronization object; it is excessive because
+the synchronization is done once with all the work in the queue.
+
+It is important to mention that work queues are usually provided by the "core" heterogeneous
+programming model such as CUDA or SYCL, and it is common for a program to use one queue
+with several libraries as well as custom-written kernels.
+
+### 3. Fork and join
+
+We also observed programs using asynchronous algorithms in a very common *fork-join* parallel
+pattern for processing some big work in parallel.
+
+```
+work-queue qs[] = {/*initialize all the queues*/};
+sync-object jobs[];
+/* split work to multiple queues */
+for (work-queue q in qs) {
+    sync-object s = foo-async(q, /*arguments*/);
+    append s to jobs;
+}
+/* synchronize with all parts */
+sync-with(jobs);
+/* combine the results, if needed */
+```
+
+For example, [Distributed Ranges](https://github.com/oneapi-src/distributed-ranges) use oneDPL
+asynchronous algorithms in this way to distribute work across available devices.
+
+## Existing approaches outside oneDPL
+
+### Thrust
+
+The Thrust library uses two approaches for its asynchronous algorithms. First, it has a set of
+explicitly asynchronous algorithms that return an event or a future to later synchronize with.
+Second, Thrust has a special `par_nosync` execution policy that indicates that the implementation
+can skip non-essential synchronization as the caller will explicitly synchronize with the device
+or stream before accessing the results. Both approaches are implemented for the CUDA backend only.
+More information can be found in the [Thrust changelog](https://nvidia.github.io/cccl/thrust/releases/changelog.html).
+
+### C++ async & future
+
+The C++ standard provides several ways for a program to use asynchrony, but [`std::future` and
+related APIs](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header/future), especially `std::async`, are of the
+most interest for this discussion. The `std::async` routine runs a given function asynchronously,
+returning `std::future` to obtain the result later. Essentially, this is the model that both
+oneDPL and Thrust (as well as other libraries) use for their asynchronous APIs.
+
+There is a fair amount of criticism for this model, which primarily points to the lack of support
+for advanced usage scenarios, including setting graphs of dependent asynchronous tasks.
+Alternative implementations of futures, for example in [stlab](https://stlab.cc/includes/stlab/concurrency/)
+as well as in Thrust, try addressing some of the shortcomings.
+
+### C++26 execution control library
+
+The new [execution control library](https://eel.is/c++draft/exec) in C++ 26, also known as
+[*schedulers/senders/receivers*](https://wg21.link/p2300), is the proposed way to improve
+asynchronous programming with C++, dealing with the limitations of `std::future`. In the essence,
+this library provides a language to build program flow graphs and then run those on chosen execution
+resources.
+
+The stages of creating and executing a graph of computations are separate; the execution can only
+be started explicitly by one of a few dedicated calls. Therefore the approach appears more
+suitable for deferred execution, while eager execution would be at least more verbose to code.
+
+Some companion proposals, notably for [async_scope](https://wg21.link/p3149) and [system execution
+context](https://wg21.link/p2079), are yet to be accepted to the working draft. The proposal for
+adding [asynchronous parallel algorithms](https://wg21.link/p3300) is at a very early stage and
+is not planned for C++ 26.
+
+## Design considerations
+
+### Key requirements
+
+### Use of C++26 senders
+
+### Returning a computed value
+
+### Expressing dependencies
+
+### Lifetime of temporary allocations
+
+### Interoperability
+
+## Proposal
+
+TODO: Replace the text in this section with a full and detailed description of the proposal.
+It is expected to have:
+
+- The proposed API such as class definitions and function declarations.
+- Coverage of the described use cases.
+- Alternatives that were considered, along with their pros and cons.
+
+## Open Questions
+
+TODO: List any questions that are not sufficiently elaborated in the proposal,
+need more discussion or prototyping experience, etc.
+
+- Exception handling
+- Cancellation support to avoid computing what is no more necessary