mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation
Date Sat, 28 Sep 2019 10:24:54 GMT
Do we have a good knowledge and overview over all the use cases that use
Amalgamation? At least from my perspective I don't feel well informed about
the blast radius.

-Marco

Junru Shao <junrushao1994@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 28. Sep. 2019, 09:14:

> As Tianqi and Sheng mentioned, given the fact that we are able to do
> deployment in a possibly better way (correct me if I was wrong), I would
> love to +1 to Pedro’s proposal.
>
> In the meantime, as a healthy open source community, I also agree with
> Naveen’s point that we should do more homework for both our developers and
> customers. IMHO, for example, it would be super helpful if Pedro may bring
> up some documentation describing what is the “best practice” of using the
> alternative of amalgamation, if our community agree to deprecate it.
>
> Thank you guys so much for the discussion!
>
> Junru
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 17:00 Tianqi Chen <tqchen@cs.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > The original amalgamation tries to generate a single file for compilation
> > via a script.  This is largely un-necessary, having a file that include
> the
> > dependent files and compile that one is relatively easy and sometimes
> more
> > robust(without expanding everything into a single file).
> >
> > I think it might makes sense to deprecate and remove the current one
> given
> > that it is no longer properly functioning. If someone is interested,
> create
> > another deployment example that is more standalone without the file
> > expansion. Here is an reference of the "new style" used in the tvm
> project
> > https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/howto_deploy
> >
> > TQ
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:49 PM Sheng Zha <zhasheng@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > As an alternative to amalgamation, could we simply ask users to
> > statically
> > > link to libmxnet.a, and then prune the symbol table to get rid of the
> > > binary of unused functions? Though I don't know the full context of
> > > amalgamation, based on my knowledge on this feature I'm not aware of
> any
> > > difference in the end result, compared to the code-inlining approach
> that
> > > amalgamation takes.
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> > > On 2019/09/12 17:29:02, Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > so the original email suggesting to remove was after all self-serving
> > :)
> > > >
> > > > let's encourage if someone wants to maintain and make use of the
> > original
> > > > work and make it better.
> > > >
> > > > -1 to remove at this point
> > > >
> > > > P.S: I suggest to do some due diligence before bringing topics up for
> > > > discussion.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:10 AM Lv, Tao A <tao.a.lv@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry to chime in.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a PR to fix amalgamation. I was pinged several times to
> > merge
> > > it
> > > > > but I don't think I have enough knowledge to do that. So it would
> be
> > > great
> > > > > if someone from this thread can help to review.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15303
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > -tao
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:38 PM
> > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove amalgamation
> > > > >
> > > > > Is Amalgamation only used on Android though? Are there any other
> use
> > > cases?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Marco
> > > > >
> > > > > Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi.,
11.
> Sep.
> > > 2019,
> > > > > 11:57:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Anirudh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Appreciate your feedback and sorry if my email came across that
> way
> > > to
> > > > > > you, I think you might miss some context. I don't think calling
> > > > > > something hacky is anything bad and isn't supposed to be the
> topic
> > of
> > > > > > the discussion. It was reported as not working by users, hence
> the
> > > > > > original thread. It was a request for opinions from people who
> > might
> > > > > > actually have tried to work in Mxnet on Android.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Anirudh Subramanian
> > > > > > <anirudh2290@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Pedro,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't see anything "destructive" with Chris asking for
> > > > > > > justification
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > you calling something "hacky". The only email in this thread
> > where
> > > I
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > ad
> > > > > > > hominems and disrespectful comments is your email.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019, 10:18 PM Pedro Larroy
> > > > > > > <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Apache mentors should have a look at these reincident
> harassment
> > > > > > >> and destructive behaviors which demotivate contributions
and
> > take
> > > > > > >> action. It takes only one bad apple to ruin a community.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The mobile solution that is known to work as of know
is cross
> > > > > > >> compiling with "ci/build.py -p build.android_armv8"
or
> > > > > > >> "build.android_armv7". The only advantage of amalgamation
is
> to
> > > > > > >> provide a smaller binary that we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > >> accomplish with the C preprocessor.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> My technical contributions speak for themselves, including
> > porting
> > > > > > >> MXNet
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> Android and ARM and helping many users run MXNet in
Jetson,
> > > > > > >> Raspberry Pi and Android amongst many other topics.
I have
> never
> > > > > > >> been disrespectful
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> anyone. I'm entitled to my own technical opinions about
> > > > > > >> amalgamation or
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> other piece of code whatsoever, that's no personal
disrespect
> to
> > > > > > >> anyone
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> perfectly valid. If you are not interested in this
project
> > > anymore,
> > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > >> all a favor and stop trolling and being toxic. If you
want my
> > > > > > >> respect,
> > > > > > step
> > > > > > >> up your technical contributions, be positive and encourage
> > others,
> > > > > > >> this including commits, I haven't seen for many months,
please
> > be
> > > > > > >> positive
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> constructive. This scorched-earth attitude is only
reflecting
> > bad
> > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > you.
> > > > > > >> I'm certainly not interested in your ad-hominems or
unasked
> for
> > > > > > technical
> > > > > > >> advice, which to be honest,  showing poor judgment
and
> > ignorance.
> > > > > > >> Myself and others have come up with numbers, graphs,
metrics
> and
> > > > > > >> arguments and have been met with dismissal, trolling
and
> > > > > > >> sea-lioning. I have recieved your insults via public
and
> private
> > > > > > >> channels (such as linkedin) as have others. This is
not ok and
> > has
> > > > > > >> to stop. If you have something personal against me
or against
> > your
> > > > > > >> former employer, this is not the right place
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> forum.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Chris Olivier
> > > > > > >> <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Hi Pedro,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > While I was not involved with amalgamation or
its
> development
> > in
> > > > > > >> > any
> > > > > > way,
> > > > > > >> > can you please refrain from referring to the work
of others
> > as a
> > > > > > "hacky
> > > > > > >> > solution"?  This is derogatory slang and the statement
was
> not
> > > > > > supported
> > > > > > >> > with any justification for such name-calling.
 Someone
> spent a
> > > > > > >> > good
> > > > > > deal
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> > time on this solution at some point in time and
I am sure it
> > > > > > >> > worked
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> its
> > > > > > >> > purpose at that time -- I think it was used in
the original
> > > > > > >> > javascript
> > > > > > >> port
> > > > > > >> > as well, actually -- and it is disrespectful to
call their
> > > > > > >> > efforts "hacky".  Please respect what came before.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Thanks for understanding,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > -Chris
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:07 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > >> pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Hi
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > I would like to propose to remove amalgamation
from MXNet
> > and
> > > > > > >> > > CI,
> > > > > > users
> > > > > > >> > > have reported that they couldn't use it successfully
in
> > > > > > >> > > Android, and instead they were able to use
the cross
> > compiled
> > > > > > >> > > docker build
> > > > > > >> > successfully.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Any reason why we shouldn't remove this hacky
solution?
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Pedro.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message