Hi Kellen, The CPP tests PR totally make sense to me. What I really want to figure out is the process that reaching an agreement before merging conflicted PRs.
Best Mu On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:25 AM, kellen sunderland < [email protected]> wrote: > Hey Mu + Da, sorry to hear that. I've been working on the CPP tests PR and > iterating on it for quite a while. I can assure you getting it merged had > nothing to do with this revert from my perceptive. It's actually a task > assigned to me for Q1 internally at Amazon. > > I'm actually completely unfamiliar with what's going regarding the revert, > but I'm quite looking forward to this PR getting merged. It seemed to > cleanup the code a lot, and I known Asmus and I will be looking closely at > the perf numbers. (MKL in the past has given us huge speed boosts on a > service we're optimizing). > > -Kellen > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Mu Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think simply reverting the MKL PR that Da has been working for a half > > year and immediately enabling the cpp tests in the CI without reaching an > > agreement with Da seriously hurts his feelings. > > > > I put the details at the end of > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9661 > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Chris Olivier <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I have created starter changes for converting to the CoreOpExecutor. > This > > > code compiles the first test. > > > > > > See notes in the PR description: > > > > > > https://github.com/cjolivier01/mxnet/pull/2 > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Zhao, Patric <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, Chris, I agree the quality is the most important thing. > > > > > > > > We will try to enable these cases ASAP. > > > > > > > > ---Patric > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Chris Olivier [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 1:04 PM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: Re: Unit tests removed > > > > > > > > > > C++ Unit tests test correctness of output as well as consistency of > > > *all > > > > > inputs and outputs* between different implementations (mkl, cpu, > gpu, > > > > > cudnn, etc.) > > > > > > > > > > C++ Unit tests also test that varying channel axes produce the > > expected > > > > > numeric distributions. > > > > > > > > > > In addition, *batch norm tests in test_operator.py are disabled due > > to > > > CI > > > > > issues*, so this leaves batch norm largely untested (even though > > those > > > > tests > > > > > only tested numeric gradient and nothing else -- they were existing > > > tests > > > > > before I re-factored batch norm and they were weak to begin with). > > > > > > > > > > C++ unit tests also measure performance differences between the > > various > > > > > versions (cpu, mkl, gpu, cudnn, etc). > > > > > I've made several comments over the course of this mkl-dnn project > > that > > > > the > > > > > unit tests need to be fixed to adjust to the refactor, so this > > > shouldn't > > > > br a > > > > > surprise to anyone. > > > > > > > > > > Hacking out unit tests when it's inconvenient to fix them because > of > > > your > > > > > code changes sets a *dangerous precedent*. What would the rule be? > > Is > > > it > > > > > "don't remove tests unless your PR is really big and it would take > > you > > > a > > > > > couple of days to fix them"? We aren't talking about 1-2 tests, > > either > > > > -- > > > > > we're talking about a LOT of tests that test various aspects of the > > > > operators. > > > > > > > > > > As for Intel, they are free to use the PR branch, and even if they > > > > can't, I don't > > > > > think that (or anything else) justifies compromising quality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:45 PM, Haibin Lin < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Good catch. > > > > > > > > > > > > In general, I agree that tests are not supposed to removed, > > although > > > > > > CI is not running any of these cpp tests just yet. Usually unit > > tests > > > > > > in python for individual operators should be sufficient to test > the > > > > > > correctness of operators (although I don't know how/if python > tests > > > > > > can run on edge devices like iOS/Android) and it's not feasible > to > > > > > > duplicate all operator python tests with their cpp counterparts. > > For > > > > > > functionalities that are not exposed to python or memory checks, > I > > do > > > > > > agree that cpp tests are necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am curious what are exactly tested in those cpp tests? I know > > that > > > > > > BatchNorm ops are tested in python already, but I don't have a > full > > > > > > picture of all cpp tests and whether we want to re-implement > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, be aware that the Intel team have a few > MKL-DNN > > > > > > related projects depending on this PR. Reverting the PR will be a > > > > blocker for > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Haibin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a link: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/8302# > > > > > > discussion_r165204667 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-01-31 15:23 GMT-08:00 Marco de Abreu > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > considering the size of that PR, could you provide a direct > > link > > > > > > > > to the changes you're addressing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-01-31 13:39 GMT-08:00 Chris Olivier < > > [email protected] > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This PR was just merged that removed some 30 or so C++ unit > > > tests > > > > > > > >> for batch norm operator. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/8302 > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Is this ok? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
