tvm-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From GitBox <>
Subject [GitHub] [incubator-tvm] anijain2305 edited a comment on issue #4828: [QNN][TFLite] TFLite rounding mode support
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2020 16:51:46 GMT
anijain2305 edited a comment on issue #4828: [QNN][TFLite] TFLite rounding mode support
   Actually, Requantize is the bottleneck in my observation on Rasp Pi 4. For TFLite quantized
mobilenetv1, currently with master + auto-tuning, I get 56 ms (TFLite is 35 ms).  Upon deeper
analysis, I found requantize to be the bottleneck (even with UPWARD rounding which is the
cheapest). The reason is that calculations happen in int64 and either ARM does not have good
instructions or LLVM does not pick up the right instructions.
   As an experiment, I forced the datatype of Requantize to be int32. This will lead to bad
accuracy but it will give us an idea what is the minimum latency of Requantize op. The runtime
reduced from earlier 56 ms to 36 ms (almost as good as TFLite). So, requantize is the bottleneck.
   Additionally, we should notice that TFLite rounding is not a standard rounding. They have
moved backwards from the ARM instructions they want to use. Because of that they have 2 roundings
instead of 1 - 1 in `SaturatingRoundingDoublingHighMul` (non-standard rounding) and other
   `RoundingDivideByPOT` (standard). Given there are 2 roundings, they have also made an accuracy-performance
tradeoff. So, my suggestion is that we should also wisely think if it makes sense to completely
follow TFLite rounding as the golden reference. For example, following reference function
   // This function implements the same computation as the ARMv7 NEON VQRDMULH
   // instruction.
   template <>
   inline std::int32_t SaturatingRoundingDoublingHighMul(std::int32_t a,
                                                         std::int32_t b) {
     bool overflow = a == b && a == std::numeric_limits<std::int32_t>::min();
     std::int64_t a_64(a);
     std::int64_t b_64(b);
     std::int64_t ab_64 = a_64 * b_64;
     std::int32_t nudge = ab_64 >= 0 ? (1 << 30) : (1 - (1 << 30));
     std::int32_t ab_x2_high32 =
         static_cast<std::int32_t>((ab_64 + nudge) / (1ll << 31));
     return overflow ? std::numeric_limits<std::int32_t>::max() : ab_x2_high32;
   This function alone needs around 10 Relay ops (if not more), but in TFLite this is just
 1 ARM instruction - VQRDMULH. I doubt that LLVM will be able to use that instruction automatically.
   In summary, I understand the benefits of exact match between TFLite and TVM. But in contrast
to FP32 networks, this is one of the cases, where frameworks have made their choice to tradeoff
perf and accuracy for a specific ARM device. Note that with non-TFLite rounding, the application
accuracy is still similar, so it might be an acceptable tradeoff. Therefore, I would encourage
to think more deeply. I worry that the extensive work going in this PR might need major reconsideration
when we dont see good performance improvements.
   If we relax the exact tensor match criteria, there might be other ways to get the perfromance
like using tensorize.
   @u99127 @masahi might also be interested in this.

This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:

With regards,
Apache Git Services

View raw message