zxybazh commented on code in PR #13406:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/13406#discussion_r1024302240
##########
src/meta_schedule/measure_callback/update_cost_model.cc:
##########
@@ -42,7 +42,8 @@ class UpdateCostModelNode : public MeasureCallbackNode {
pruned_candidate.reserve(n);
pruned_runner_result.reserve(n);
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
- if (!builder_results[i]->error_msg.defined() &&
+ if (!builder_results[i]->error_msg.defined() && //
+ !runner_results[i]->error_msg.defined() && //
Sum(runner_results[i]->run_secs.value()) > 0) {
Review Comment:
```suggestion
if (!builder_results[i]->error_msg.defined() && //
(runner_results[i]->error_msg.defined() || //
Sum(runner_results[i]->run_secs.value()) > 0)) {
```
##########
src/meta_schedule/measure_callback/update_cost_model.cc:
##########
@@ -42,7 +42,8 @@ class UpdateCostModelNode : public MeasureCallbackNode {
pruned_candidate.reserve(n);
pruned_runner_result.reserve(n);
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
- if (!builder_results[i]->error_msg.defined() &&
+ if (!builder_results[i]->error_msg.defined() && //
+ !runner_results[i]->error_msg.defined() && //
Review Comment:
We don't need to filter out failed runs because they are expected to be used
as negative examples in cost models, for example see
[here](https://cs.github.com/apache/tvm/blob/b4d4b82dbb9be2e4d0954f9dfd8e1c46079b66ee/python/tvm/meta_schedule/cost_model/xgb_model.py#L472)
for xgboost model usage. I suggest that we change it to check `Sum(...) > 0`
only when runner's error message is not defined.
--
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
