Add Cooperative Groups API integration

[thedodd]

This works as follows:

• Users build their Cuda code via CudaBuilder as normal.
• If they want to use the cooperative groups API, then in their build.rs, just after building their PTX, they will:
  • Create a cuda_builder::cg::CooperativeGroups instance,
  • Add any needed opts for building the Cooperative Groups API bridge code (-arch=sm_* and so on),
  • Add their newly built PTX code to be linked with the CG API, which can include multiple PTX, cubin or fatbin files,
  • Call .compile(..), which will spit out a fully linked cubin,
• In the user's main application code, instead of using launch! to schedule their GPU work, they will now use launch_cooperative!.

todo

• Update cust to expose the cuLaunchCooperativeKernel in a nice interface. We can add the cooperative multi device bits later, along with all of the other bits from the cooperative API.
• Update cuda_builder crate to expose a nice API around linking PTX code with the Cooperative Groups API bridge code.
• Remove the Justfile. I was only using it for POC testing.
• Remove the PTX code from this branch, currently it is just here for reference.

---

• closes Add Cooperative Groups API integration #87

[thedodd]

@RDambrosio016 whenever you get some time (no rush), let me know what you think. I am testing this out as I go on a fairly large project of mine which brought about this need in the first place.

Overall, the bridging code is quite simple. I've given an outline of how I think this should be exposed overall. Let me know what you think, happy to modify things as I go.

Also, for this first pass, I would like to keep focused only on the grid-level components of the cooperative groups API, as well as the basic cooperative launch host-side function. We can add multi-device and the other cooperative group components later.

[RDambrosio016]

This looks neat, but if im not mistaken, those functions map to single PTX intrinsics directly, wouldn't it be easier to use inline assembly? though i haven't actually looked into this so im not sure if they map to more than one PTX instruction

[thedodd]

wouldn't it be easier to use inline assembly?

I started down that path at first, and for a few of the pertinent functions the corresponding PTX was clear. I was using a base C++ program compiled down to PTX to verify in addition to cross-referencing with the PTX ISA spec. However, I will say, many of the interfaces were not as clear, and this seemed to be a potentially more reliable way to generate the needed code.

Perhaps we can replace some of the clear interfaces with some ASM instead. Happy to iterate on this in the future.

[LegNeato]

Hello! We are rebooting this project. Sorry for your PR not getting merged!

Is this still relevant?