Vivek Kale

> Is it okay to leave `#define KOKKOSP_INTERFACE_VERSION 20211015` or does it need to be incremented? Looking through this and the other code files here and in the Kokkos Tools...

> The implementation looks reasonable to me but I don't fully understand why we need to forward the functor size to tools. Can you provide some examples? @masterleinad I think...

> Would you prefer a separate profiling interface function for each separate piece of information we might want to capture? That's a relatively easy change (and how I envisioned it...

@ajpowelsnl Thanks for pointing this out. I have been following this, and I am trying to see the implications to performance of a Kokkos Tools connectors when the tool's global...

While I am not certain this comes from Kokkos Tools primarily, lines 219-230 in the following may be a culprit: https://github.com/kokkos/kokkos/blob/master/core/src/impl/Kokkos_Profiling.cpp Basically, fencing should happen at a finer-granularity per execution...

I have put the associated Kokkos Tools Github Issue here: https://github.com/kokkos/kokkos-tools/issues/245 I will be working on a corresponding Kokkos Tools PR for review. Also, I think the GitHub issue title...

Thanks @masterleinad Imposing kokkostools (monolithic) library requirement only for those Kokkos Tools tests needing it will make it easier for users to run the Kokkos Tools tests on their own...

> @crtrott is this the way to disable fencing? > > > > https://github.com/cwpearson/kokkos-tools/blob/ad8848843e6fed0c0c3d76a8689b648eba44f3aa/profiling/nvtx-connector/kp_nvtx_connector.cpp#L60-L62 > > > > If so, I think we're good :D @cwpearson yes, I believe that...

@dalg24 Thanks. I will work with @cwpearson to fix.

> @dalg24 I have retargeted to develop @cwpearson Thanks!