mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Afrooze, Sina" <sina....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Discuss] Next MXNet release
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2018 17:13:57 GMT
This post suggests there is a regression from 1.1.0 to 1.2.1 related to MKLDNN integration:
https://discuss.mxnet.io/t/mxnet-1-2-1-module-get-outputs/1882

The error is related to MKLDNN layout not being converted back to MXNet layout in some operator:
" !IsMKLDNNData() We can’t generate TBlob for MKLDNN data. Please use Reorder2Default()
to generate a new NDArray first"

Sina




On 9/30/18, 6:55 PM, "Steffen Rochel" <steffenrochel@gmail.com> wrote:

    Thanks Patrick.
    Updated roadmap and next release content.
    
    Patrick - suggest to send a reminder to review the design doc and collect
    feedback.
    Are there still known issues or gaps before we declare MKL-DNN integration
    as GA?
    
    Regards,
    Steffen
    
    On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM Zhao, Patric <patric.zhao@intel.com> wrote:
    
    > Thanks, Steffen.
    >
    > Regarding the next release note, two items from our side:
    >
    > 1. (-remove) MKL-DNN integration is done. I think we can remove this item.
    > 2. (+add) MKL-DNN based graph optimization and quantization by subgraph
    >     Design doc:
    > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Graph+Optimization+and+Quantization+based+on+subgraph+and+MKL-DNN
    >     Lead Contributor: Patric Zhao,  https://github.com/pengzhao-intel/
    >
    > Regarding the Roadmap
    > (+add) Q1 2019: MKL-DNN RNN API supports
    >
    > BR,
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > --Patric
    >
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderland@gmail.com]
    > > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2018 11:31 AM
    > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
    > > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Next MXNet release
    > >
    > > Sorry I meant to say next 'Regarding the *minor* release'.
    > >
    > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:27 AM kellen sunderland <
    > > kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Thanks for transparently setting a rough timeline Steffen.  I think
    > > > this will go a long way in helping the community plan their work, even
    > > > if the details change somewhat on the road to the release.
    > > >
    > > > Regarding the major release: I would propose we unify TensorRT with
    > > > the subgraph operator work.
    > > >
    > > > Regarding the patch release:  There were a few minor stack/buffer
    > > > overflows exposed by ASAN that have been addressed.  It's probably a
    > > > good idea to include them in a patch release, as they at best result
    > > > in non-deterministic behaviour.
    > > >
    > > > -Kellen
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:39 AM Steffen Rochel
    > > > <steffenrochel@gmail.com>
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> I updated
    > > >>
    > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+f
    > > >> or+next+MXNet+Release
    > > >> ,
    > > >> removed the completed items from 1.3 release and would like to kick
    > > >> off discussion about the next release. Please suggest what you would
    > > >> like to see included in the next release together with link to design
    > > >> proposal (appropriately for the size and complexity of the proposal)
    > > >> or suggest changes.
    > > >> I suggest to target the next release for December 2018 to frame the
    > > >> discussion.
    > > >> Lets include review of
    > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Roadmap -
    > > >> time to update and discuss changes.
    > > >>
    > > >> From the 1.3 release we had discussion regarding
    > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11849 and resolution
    > > >> in
    > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12412 .
    > > >> Are you aware of critical issues and feedback from user which we
    > > >> should consider for a potential 1.3.1 patch release. Should we
    > > >> include PR 12412 in a potential patch release?
    > > >>
    > > >> Regards,
    > > >> Steffen
    > > >>
    > > >
    >
    



Mime
View raw message