Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.3
Hi Dom, I verified resnet50 run on MXNet master branch. Checked on single gpu machine. Numbers match. I didn't see any performance degradation. https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/faq/perf.html#scoring-results Can you please give me more details on the instance type and script you ran exactly so that I can try to reproduce it again? Thanks, Roshani On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:31 PM Roshani Nagmote wrote: > This is not a major feature. I meant other new feature requests PR won't > be accepted in 1.3 release now. > Bug fixes will be accepted. I will be trying to reproduce the regression > Dom mentioned today. :) > > Thanks, > Roshani > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:06 PM Naveen Swamy wrote: > >> Is this is a major feature? This is a regression that Dom is reporting wrt >> to performance >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Roshani Nagmote < >> roshaninagmo...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> > Thanks for reporting this issue Dom. >> > 08/10 (Frida)y was the major feature freeze date. We won't be accepting >> any >> > new features now for MXNet 1.3 release. >> > RC0 will be cut on 08/17(Friday). >> > >> > Will be verifying the performance degradation issue mentioned. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Roshani >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 8:45 AM Divakaruni, Dominic >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, We tested resnet50 on MXNet built from master branch on Friday >> > and >> > > were seeing degraded performance on GPU - about 50% slower compared to >> > > these values here https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/faq/perf.html. >> FWIW >> > > this slowdown was seen for both MXNet as well as the TRT integrated >> > MXNet. >> > > >> > > Something for you all to verify before or after you cut the RC. >> > > >> > > Thx! >> > > >> > > On 8/13/18, 4:34 AM, "kellen sunderland" < >> kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > Hey Roshani, >> > > >> > > Has a RC branch already been cut? If so, a quick heads up that I >> > think >> > > this commit should probably get into RC0 for 1.3. >> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ >> > ee8755a2531b322fec29c9c3d2aa3b8738da41f3 >> > > >> > > It won't cause issues for users, but from a versioning >> compatibility >> > > perspective it's probably better that we remove these functions in >> > this >> > > release. This way we don't have to worry about major bumps in the >> > next >> > > release if they're removed. >> > > >> > > -Kellen >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 7:24 PM Roshani Nagmote < >> > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Thanks Kellen and everyone else for working to get TensorRT PR >> > > merged! >> > > > @Sina, I will be keeping track of that issue and fixes to get in >> > the >> > > > release. >> > > > >> > > > We are starting code freeze for 1.3 release today. A release >> > > candidate will >> > > > be cut on 08/17. >> > > > Feel free to add any other comments/suggestions. >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Roshani >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:39 AM kellen sunderland < >> > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > All merged and ready to go from my side Roshani (the TensorRT >> > PR). >> > > > > >> > > > > I agree with Sina that issue 12116 looks it's a blocker. I'll >> > try >> > > and >> > > > > reproduce it locally to get another datapoint. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:15 AM Afrooze, Sina < >> > sina@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Roshani - I think this regression issue is a release >> > blocker: >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/12116 - >> Sina >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On 8/8/18, 12:40 PM, "Roshani Nagmote" < >> > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, Kellen for letting me know. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM kellen sunderland < >> > > > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hey Roshani, I think it should be ready by Friday. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:20 PM Roshani Nagmote < >> > > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks Kellen. Yes, we were treating this PR as a >> > release >> > > > > blocker. >> > > > > > Do you >> > > > > > > > have any ETA by which it will be completed? >> Approximate >> > > time >> > > > will >> > > > > > also >> > > > > > > > work. >> > > > > > > > @zhi, Thanks for bringing this PR into notice. I >> will >> > > keep a >> > > > > track >> > > > > > of it. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -Roshani >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:30 AM
Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.3
Is this is a major feature? This is a regression that Dom is reporting wrt to performance On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Roshani Nagmote wrote: > Thanks for reporting this issue Dom. > 08/10 (Frida)y was the major feature freeze date. We won't be accepting any > new features now for MXNet 1.3 release. > RC0 will be cut on 08/17(Friday). > > Will be verifying the performance degradation issue mentioned. > > Thanks, > Roshani > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 8:45 AM Divakaruni, Dominic > wrote: > > > Hi all, We tested resnet50 on MXNet built from master branch on Friday > and > > were seeing degraded performance on GPU - about 50% slower compared to > > these values here https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/faq/perf.html. FWIW > > this slowdown was seen for both MXNet as well as the TRT integrated > MXNet. > > > > Something for you all to verify before or after you cut the RC. > > > > Thx! > > > > On 8/13/18, 4:34 AM, "kellen sunderland" > > wrote: > > > > Hey Roshani, > > > > Has a RC branch already been cut? If so, a quick heads up that I > think > > this commit should probably get into RC0 for 1.3. > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ > ee8755a2531b322fec29c9c3d2aa3b8738da41f3 > > > > It won't cause issues for users, but from a versioning compatibility > > perspective it's probably better that we remove these functions in > this > > release. This way we don't have to worry about major bumps in the > next > > release if they're removed. > > > > -Kellen > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 7:24 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks Kellen and everyone else for working to get TensorRT PR > > merged! > > > @Sina, I will be keeping track of that issue and fixes to get in > the > > > release. > > > > > > We are starting code freeze for 1.3 release today. A release > > candidate will > > > be cut on 08/17. > > > Feel free to add any other comments/suggestions. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Roshani > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:39 AM kellen sunderland < > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > All merged and ready to go from my side Roshani (the TensorRT > PR). > > > > > > > > I agree with Sina that issue 12116 looks it's a blocker. I'll > try > > and > > > > reproduce it locally to get another datapoint. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:15 AM Afrooze, Sina < > sina@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Roshani - I think this regression issue is a release > blocker: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/12116 - Sina > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/8/18, 12:40 PM, "Roshani Nagmote" < > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Kellen for letting me know. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM kellen sunderland < > > > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Roshani, I think it should be ready by Friday. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:20 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Kellen. Yes, we were treating this PR as a > release > > > > blocker. > > > > > Do you > > > > > > > have any ETA by which it will be completed? Approximate > > time > > > will > > > > > also > > > > > > > work. > > > > > > > @zhi, Thanks for bringing this PR into notice. I will > > keep a > > > > track > > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Roshani > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:30 AM Joshua Z. Zhang < > > > > > cheungc...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I strongly suggest to track this PR > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908 > < > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908 > > > > in 1.3 > > > > > release > > > > > > > > which fixed the usability issue for lower end > machines > > that > > > > > don’t have > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > large shared memory space as ec2 instances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Zhi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Roshani Nagmote < > > > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, we are delaying MXNet 1.3 release for > > pending > > > > > TensorRT PR > > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ >
Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.3
Thanks for reporting this issue Dom. 08/10 (Frida)y was the major feature freeze date. We won't be accepting any new features now for MXNet 1.3 release. RC0 will be cut on 08/17(Friday). Will be verifying the performance degradation issue mentioned. Thanks, Roshani On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 8:45 AM Divakaruni, Dominic wrote: > Hi all, We tested resnet50 on MXNet built from master branch on Friday and > were seeing degraded performance on GPU - about 50% slower compared to > these values here https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/faq/perf.html. FWIW > this slowdown was seen for both MXNet as well as the TRT integrated MXNet. > > Something for you all to verify before or after you cut the RC. > > Thx! > > On 8/13/18, 4:34 AM, "kellen sunderland" > wrote: > > Hey Roshani, > > Has a RC branch already been cut? If so, a quick heads up that I think > this commit should probably get into RC0 for 1.3. > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ee8755a2531b322fec29c9c3d2aa3b8738da41f3 > > It won't cause issues for users, but from a versioning compatibility > perspective it's probably better that we remove these functions in this > release. This way we don't have to worry about major bumps in the next > release if they're removed. > > -Kellen > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 7:24 PM Roshani Nagmote < > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks Kellen and everyone else for working to get TensorRT PR > merged! > > @Sina, I will be keeping track of that issue and fixes to get in the > > release. > > > > We are starting code freeze for 1.3 release today. A release > candidate will > > be cut on 08/17. > > Feel free to add any other comments/suggestions. > > > > Thanks, > > Roshani > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:39 AM kellen sunderland < > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > All merged and ready to go from my side Roshani (the TensorRT PR). > > > > > > I agree with Sina that issue 12116 looks it's a blocker. I'll try > and > > > reproduce it locally to get another datapoint. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:15 AM Afrooze, Sina > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Roshani - I think this regression issue is a release blocker: > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/12116 - Sina > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/8/18, 12:40 PM, "Roshani Nagmote" < > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks, Kellen for letting me know. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM kellen sunderland < > > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey Roshani, I think it should be ready by Friday. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:20 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Kellen. Yes, we were treating this PR as a release > > > blocker. > > > > Do you > > > > > > have any ETA by which it will be completed? Approximate > time > > will > > > > also > > > > > > work. > > > > > > @zhi, Thanks for bringing this PR into notice. I will > keep a > > > track > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Roshani > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:30 AM Joshua Z. Zhang < > > > > cheungc...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I strongly suggest to track this PR > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908 < > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908> > in 1.3 > > > > release > > > > > > > which fixed the usability issue for lower end machines > that > > > > don’t have > > > > > as > > > > > > > large shared memory space as ec2 instances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Zhi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Roshani Nagmote < > > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, we are delaying MXNet 1.3 release for > pending > > > > TensorRT PR > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 > ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to ask everyone for their opinions if we > should > > > delay > > > > the > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > to get tensorRT integration in or we should go ahead > with > > the > > > > release > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > include tensorRT in next release. Please provide > > suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Requesting slack access
Hi Per - added you to slack. Welcome to the project and looking forward to collaborate. Please use also discuss.mxnet.io to ask questions. What are you working on? Regards, Steffen On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:31 AM Per da Silva wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to have access to your slack channel. > > Thank you, > > Per >
Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.3
Hi all, We tested resnet50 on MXNet built from master branch on Friday and were seeing degraded performance on GPU - about 50% slower compared to these values here https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/faq/perf.html. FWIW this slowdown was seen for both MXNet as well as the TRT integrated MXNet. Something for you all to verify before or after you cut the RC. Thx! On 8/13/18, 4:34 AM, "kellen sunderland" wrote: Hey Roshani, Has a RC branch already been cut? If so, a quick heads up that I think this commit should probably get into RC0 for 1.3. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ee8755a2531b322fec29c9c3d2aa3b8738da41f3 It won't cause issues for users, but from a versioning compatibility perspective it's probably better that we remove these functions in this release. This way we don't have to worry about major bumps in the next release if they're removed. -Kellen On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 7:24 PM Roshani Nagmote wrote: > Thanks Kellen and everyone else for working to get TensorRT PR merged! > @Sina, I will be keeping track of that issue and fixes to get in the > release. > > We are starting code freeze for 1.3 release today. A release candidate will > be cut on 08/17. > Feel free to add any other comments/suggestions. > > Thanks, > Roshani > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:39 AM kellen sunderland < > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > All merged and ready to go from my side Roshani (the TensorRT PR). > > > > I agree with Sina that issue 12116 looks it's a blocker. I'll try and > > reproduce it locally to get another datapoint. > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:15 AM Afrooze, Sina > wrote: > > > > > Hi Roshani - I think this regression issue is a release blocker: > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/12116 - Sina > > > > > > > > > On 8/8/18, 12:40 PM, "Roshani Nagmote" > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks, Kellen for letting me know. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM kellen sunderland < > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Roshani, I think it should be ready by Friday. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:20 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Kellen. Yes, we were treating this PR as a release > > blocker. > > > Do you > > > > > have any ETA by which it will be completed? Approximate time > will > > > also > > > > > work. > > > > > @zhi, Thanks for bringing this PR into notice. I will keep a > > track > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > > -Roshani > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:30 AM Joshua Z. Zhang < > > > cheungc...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I strongly suggest to track this PR > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908 < > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908> in 1.3 > > > release > > > > > > which fixed the usability issue for lower end machines that > > > don’t have > > > > as > > > > > > large shared memory space as ec2 instances. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > - Zhi > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Roshani Nagmote < > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, we are delaying MXNet 1.3 release for pending > > > TensorRT PR > > > > ( > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to ask everyone for their opinions if we should > > delay > > > the > > > > > > release > > > > > > > to get tensorRT integration in or we should go ahead with > the > > > release > > > > > and > > > > > > > include tensorRT in next release. Please provide > suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Roshani > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:45 AM Hagay Lupesko < > > > lupe...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Some thoughts: why not keep it out of 1.3, and merge it > into > > > master > > > > so > > > > > > it > > > > > > >> can go out with 1.4 instead? > > > > > > >> Pros: > > > > > > >> - Reduce quality risks for 1.3 > > > > > > >> - More time to test and get feedback before release > > > > > > >> - Avoid further delays
Re: GCC march flags and target architecture in x86-64, remove -msse2
Hi Pedro,
+1
Additionally, I would suggest reading the paper below and exercising
appropriate diligence in checking for performance of the binary generated
when compiling with -xavx flag because transitioning between 256-bit Intel®
AVX instructions and legacy Intel® SSE instructions within a program may
cause performance penalties as the the hardware must save and restore the
upper 128 bits of the YMM registers.
See:
https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/m/d/4/1/d/8/11MC12_Avoiding_2BAVX-SSE_2BTransition_2BPenalties_2Brh_2Bfinal.pdf
>From the paper above, to minimize issues when using Intel® AVX, it is
recommended that you compile any source files intended to run on processors
that support Intel® AVX with the –xavx flag. If your code contains
functions intended to be run on multiple different generation processors,
then it is recommended that you use the new Intel® specific pragma as
opposed to compiling with -xavx. Additionally, you should use the VEX
encoded form of 128-bit instructions to avoid AVX-SSE transitions. Even if
your code does not contain legacy Intel® SSE code, when you have completed
your use of 256-bit Intel® AVX within your code you should zero the
registers as soon as possible using the vzeroupper instruction or their
intrinsic instructions; this can help you avoid introducing transitions in
the future or causing transitions in programs that may use your code.
Finally, when developing a program that includes Intel® AVX, it is
recommended that you always check for AVX-SSE transitions with Intel®
Software Development Emulator (aka SDE) or Intel® vTune™ Amplifier XE.
Command to use Intel® SDE to detect AVX-SSE transitions, and sample output
from Intel® SDE:
$ sde –oast avx-sse-transitions.out –- user-application [args]
Penalty Dynamic Dynamic
in AVX to SSE SSE to AVX Static Dynamic Previous
Block Transition Transition Icount Executions Icount Block
==
0x13ff510b5 1 0 18 1 18 N/A
#Penalty detected in routine: main @ 0x13ff510b5
0x13ff510d1 262143 262143 11 262143 2883573 0x13ff510d1
#Penalty detected in routine: main @ 0x13ff510d1
# SUMMARY
# AVX_to_SSE_transition_instances: 262144
# SSE_to_AVX_transition_instances: 262143
# Dynamic_insts: 155387299
# AVX_to_SSE_instances/instruction: 0.0017
# SSE_to_AVX_instances/instruction: 0.0017
# AVX_to_SSE_instances/100instructions: 0.1687
# SSE_to_AVX_instances/100instructions: 0.1687
Bhavin Thaker.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 7:00 AM Pedro Larroy
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think we should explicitly define march to be x86-64 (which is the
> default in Linux) and documented here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Options.html
>
> We can then also remove -msse2 which is enabled by default.
>
> piotr@ip-172-31-30-23:0:~/qemu (master)+$ echo "" | gcc -v -E - 2>&1 |
> grep
> cc1
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/cc1 -E -quiet -v -imultiarch
> x86_64-linux-gnu - -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -fstack-protector-strong
> -Wformat -Wformat-security
>
> As we can see in mkldnn build, march=native could be used which won't run
> in all the processors:
>
> 3rdparty/mkldnn/cmake/platform.cmake
>
> elseif("${CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID}" STREQUAL "GNU")
> if(NOT CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_VERSION VERSION_LESS 5.0)
> set(DEF_ARCH_OPT_FLAGS "-march=native -mtune=native")
> endif()
> if(CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_VERSION VERSION_LESS 6.0)
>
>
> A further discussion topic would be to benchmark and use AVX instructions
> present in more modern cores which might provide additional peformance
> gains, but are not x86-64 generic, as older CPUs from AMD, Intel and VIA
> don't have it.
>
GCC march flags and target architecture in x86-64, remove -msse2
Hi
I think we should explicitly define march to be x86-64 (which is the
default in Linux) and documented here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Options.html
We can then also remove -msse2 which is enabled by default.
piotr@ip-172-31-30-23:0:~/qemu (master)+$ echo "" | gcc -v -E - 2>&1 | grep
cc1
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/cc1 -E -quiet -v -imultiarch
x86_64-linux-gnu - -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -fstack-protector-strong
-Wformat -Wformat-security
As we can see in mkldnn build, march=native could be used which won't run
in all the processors:
3rdparty/mkldnn/cmake/platform.cmake
elseif("${CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID}" STREQUAL "GNU")
if(NOT CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_VERSION VERSION_LESS 5.0)
set(DEF_ARCH_OPT_FLAGS "-march=native -mtune=native")
endif()
if(CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_VERSION VERSION_LESS 6.0)
A further discussion topic would be to benchmark and use AVX instructions
present in more modern cores which might provide additional peformance
gains, but are not x86-64 generic, as older CPUs from AMD, Intel and VIA
don't have it.
Requesting slack access
Hi, I would like to have access to your slack channel. Thank you, Per
Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.3
Hey Roshani, Has a RC branch already been cut? If so, a quick heads up that I think this commit should probably get into RC0 for 1.3. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ee8755a2531b322fec29c9c3d2aa3b8738da41f3 It won't cause issues for users, but from a versioning compatibility perspective it's probably better that we remove these functions in this release. This way we don't have to worry about major bumps in the next release if they're removed. -Kellen On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 7:24 PM Roshani Nagmote wrote: > Thanks Kellen and everyone else for working to get TensorRT PR merged! > @Sina, I will be keeping track of that issue and fixes to get in the > release. > > We are starting code freeze for 1.3 release today. A release candidate will > be cut on 08/17. > Feel free to add any other comments/suggestions. > > Thanks, > Roshani > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:39 AM kellen sunderland < > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > All merged and ready to go from my side Roshani (the TensorRT PR). > > > > I agree with Sina that issue 12116 looks it's a blocker. I'll try and > > reproduce it locally to get another datapoint. > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:15 AM Afrooze, Sina > wrote: > > > > > Hi Roshani - I think this regression issue is a release blocker: > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/12116 - Sina > > > > > > > > > On 8/8/18, 12:40 PM, "Roshani Nagmote" > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks, Kellen for letting me know. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM kellen sunderland < > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Roshani, I think it should be ready by Friday. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:20 PM Roshani Nagmote < > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Kellen. Yes, we were treating this PR as a release > > blocker. > > > Do you > > > > > have any ETA by which it will be completed? Approximate time > will > > > also > > > > > work. > > > > > @zhi, Thanks for bringing this PR into notice. I will keep a > > track > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > > -Roshani > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:30 AM Joshua Z. Zhang < > > > cheungc...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I strongly suggest to track this PR > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908 < > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11908> in 1.3 > > > release > > > > > > which fixed the usability issue for lower end machines that > > > don’t have > > > > as > > > > > > large shared memory space as ec2 instances. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > - Zhi > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Roshani Nagmote < > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, we are delaying MXNet 1.3 release for pending > > > TensorRT PR > > > > ( > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325 ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to ask everyone for their opinions if we should > > delay > > > the > > > > > > release > > > > > > > to get tensorRT integration in or we should go ahead with > the > > > release > > > > > and > > > > > > > include tensorRT in next release. Please provide > suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Roshani > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:45 AM Hagay Lupesko < > > > lupe...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Some thoughts: why not keep it out of 1.3, and merge it > into > > > master > > > > so > > > > > > it > > > > > > >> can go out with 1.4 instead? > > > > > > >> Pros: > > > > > > >> - Reduce quality risks for 1.3 > > > > > > >> - More time to test and get feedback before release > > > > > > >> - Avoid further delays in 1.3 release (lots of good stuff > > > there > > > > > already > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> users) > > > > > > >> Cons: > > > > > > >> - People will need to get master to experiment with TRT > (not > > > a major > > > > > > issue > > > > > > >> IMO) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Besides, TRT requires a build flag anyway, so MXNet users > > > consuming > > > > > > built > > > > > > >> packages (PyPi, Scala) will anyway not be able to try it > out > > > unless > > > > > > >> building from source... > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thoughts? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 10:38 PM Steffen Rochel < > > > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Marek, Kellen, Jun, Da, Eric, myself and a few other > people > > > > discussed > > > > > > >>> offline about
