Agree. Recently, we (Tao, Shufan, Pengxin) are trying to integrate the Intel MKL math functions into mshadow and MXNet. We have to go through two repos and make lots of tradeoff between them. If we can move mshadow into MXNet, it will be more flexible to redesign and refactor parts of legacy code.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sheng Zha [mailto:zhash...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 AM > To: d...@mxnet.apache.org > Subject: Re: assimilation of mshadow into the MXNet codebase > > mshadow depends on *a* BLAS library, and there's nothing inherent in > mshadow code base that requires OpenBLAS over MKL. The linked issue > #11769 seems to be more of a build logic issue. > > -sz > > On 2019/04/07 18:56:43, Aaron Markham <aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > +1 > > Reduced complexity. Choice of math library... Hopefully you can just > > install MKL and not be forced into mshadow's dependency on OpenBLAS. > > This could make Windows setup easier. > > Maybe this issue will get fixed: #11769. > > > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 00:51 Junru Shao <junrushao1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Does merging mshadow into mxnet bring any actual benefit for > > > customers in sense of performance, portability, or anything else? > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:38 PM Tianqi Chen > > > <tqc...@cs.washington.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Technically, mshadow is sufficient for MXNet. Adopting other > > > > libraries ( eigen or xtensor) will unnecessarily increase the > > > > codebase complexity without any additional gains. > > > > > > > > Given that mshadow is only used by mxnet. I do support donating it > > > > into mxnet codebase. > > > > To respect the original mshadow community. I would recommend > > > > starting a community RFC In the mshadow github issue for a week, > > > > before we start the migrating process. > > > > Also, I would recommend a rebase merge just like the case of > > > > MXNet.jl > > > code > > > > base to preserve the contribution history. > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alfredo Luque > > > > <alfredo.lu...@airbnb.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Do you have a link to both of these proposals? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 20:14 Anirudh Acharya > > > > > <anirudhk...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Pedro, > > > > > > > > > > > > mshadow is mostly used for tensor arithmetic. There have been > > > > discussions > > > > > > about including it within mxnet. I think it is a good idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > As a more long term solution using libraries like eigen to > > > > > > perform > > > > linear > > > > > > algebra operations was also suggested by anirudh2290@. I think > > > > xtensor( > > > > > > https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor ) can also be a > > > > > > candidate > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Anirudh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:03 PM Pedro Larroy < > > > > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some developers have noticed that working in mshadow is > > > > > > > cumbersome > > > as > > > > > > > it's a 3rdparty subrepo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since mshadow is a bunch of headers which don't have much of > > > > > > > independent tests / library functionality, me and other > > > > > > > developers believe that it would be good to assimilate this > > > > > > > code in the repository for ease of contribution and changes > > > > > > > without having to > > > go > > > > > > > trough contortions to test PRs that modify mshadow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would anybody oppose this change? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
