mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Proposal] New operator graph for MXNet
Date Wed, 15 May 2019 00:32:54 GMT
Hi Sheng

Could  you provide relevant links to Relay and what you would
recommend to read so we have a focused discussion instead of me
potentially me miss-searching? Probably I also missed the discussion
or vote in the mail list regarding including TVM as a depedency or
future plans on using Relay.
As far as I know, we have TVM as a dependency because NNVM was
assimilated into it but we are not using it directly.  Is this
correct?

This would help me to add this information to the doc as you request.

Thanks.

Pedro.

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM Sheng Zha <zhasheng@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
> Thanks for taking the inititaive. Skimming through the design doc, I didn't see comparison
with existing solutions such as relay in tvm, which is already a dependency of mxnet already.
Could you elaborate on comparison with existing solutions in the design doc too?
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/05/14 23:49:30, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi dev@
> >
> > As a result of my deep dives on the graph machinery I have created a
> > new proposal to improve the operator graph in MXNet.
> >
> > This would mean superseding the use of NNVM Graph in MXNet and having
> > a new implementation that we can use to simplify a lot of code and do
> > powerful graph manipulation and passes such as operator fusion and
> > other optimizations.
> >
> > As it would be a change with big impact and ramifications, your
> > thoughts and feedback on the document would be highly appreciated so
> > we can take potential future interesting use cases:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXVM%3A+Operator+graph+2.0
> >
> > Pedro.
> >

Mime
View raw message