My suggestion is that there be a formal doc explaining the relationship
between TVM/NNVM and MXNet/mshadow and the next step of their roles in the
MXNet as a whole. I think this would ease the learning curve of potential
developers.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Tianqi Chen
wrote:
> It is true that most of the current GPU code depends on mshadow. Porting
> the operator code entirely over to TVM will take quite a huge effort. So a
> more gradual path forward is to could be drop-in TVM to support cases that
> it optimizes well(ARM, AMDGPU, accelerators) while keeping the old
> infrastructure around for a while.
>
> This is my part of the technical assessment. There is not yet a proposal
> for a complete migration over TVM in the community.
>
> Tianqi
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Tao Sun wrote:
>
> > After some reading and learning of MXNet, I tentatively made the
> conclusion
> > that the migration of MXNet to TVM, if it exists, has yet finished.
> > Currently, mshadow, on which most of current operator code is still
> based,
> > seems to carry out the most functionality that TVM can carry ultimately.
> > Will anyone correct/confirm this conclusion? Will the community have a
> > plan/calendar to migrate to TVM? Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Tao Sun
> >
>
