LICENSE exists
Signature file exists and looks good
Checksum file exists and looks good
DISCLAIMER file exists
NOTICE file exists
No binary files in source package
+1 (binding)
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 2:00 PM Yizhi Liu wrote:
> Dear TVM community,
>
> This is a call for vote to release Apache T
cc @ziheng @weberlo who might also be interested
---
[Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.ai/t/rfc-byoc-data-calibration-flow/7099/7)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [click
here](https://discuss.tvm.ai/email/unsubsc
Hi, for now, the `calib_data` will be sent in as an argument of `PassContext`,
which is accessible by the BYOC pass triggered by `relay.build`. Users can use
the calibration data to perform quantization. You can imagine that users can
build a helper quantizer that takes in the calibration data
Hi @liangfu, thank you for this important topic. So, if I understand correctly,
the present infra-structure do support group conv2d (as I have seen), but not
depth-wise conv2d. For this reason, we can run the benchmark tests on MobileNet
layers, but not the full MobileNet network for inference
This makes sense to me.
I'm curious to see how `calib_data` is going to be used during codegen.
Assuming you want to upstream this pass, how are you going to add tests for
this? I can imagine you can use the DNNL codegen to run a dummy calibration
pass, but not quantize.
---
[Visit Topi
I see. Thanks for clarifying @comaniac, I agree with your comments.
Addressing @merrymercy's points:
- One possible solution to the redundancy of repeating items such as target
string would be to encode something like this: `message AutoTVMLogs{ string
target; repeated AutoTVMLog; ...} ` whe
Gentle ping for comments @anijain2305, @masahi, @matt-arm, @tqchen :)
---
[Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.ai/t/rfc-byoc-data-calibration-flow/7099/4)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [click
here](https://discuss
@anwang Ansor also has a "task" concept. A task is not necessary to be just for
one operator. It just means a "tuning" task. As a result, I still vote for task.
In addition, I don't think full enumeration is proper for several reasons.
1. Full enumeration will lose the flexibility when adding
@comaniac ~~I will change `workload` to `task`.~~ Since ansor is not op-based,
I think it makes sense to keep the `workload` syntax to prepare for ansor's log
format changes.
I agree that the list-based representation of arguments is less than ideal --
currently it's hard to understand the
addressing @mdw-octoml's points:
- I will add a comment addressing the semantics of the dtype field in the proto.
- I will further refine the spec to avoid Any. I originally included
google.protobuf.Any to capture the current tuple argument semantics, which
seemingly supports arbitrary nesting
+1 (binding)
I checked hashes and performed a default build on Ubuntu 20.04 on Windows 2004.
Markus
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:57 PM Cody Yu wrote:
>
> +1
>
> --
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://gi
+1
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/issues/5947#issuecomment-651326848
+1
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/issues/5947#issuecomment-651307711
+1
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/issues/5947#issuecomment-651304553
+1
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/issues/5947#issuecomment-651301867
+1
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/issues/5947#issuecomment-651301091
+1
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/issues/5947#issuecomment-651300572
+1
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/issues/5947#issuecomment-651300467
@cbalint13 Ahh. My branch is trailing behind `master` a bit, so I missed this.
Thanks for the heads up!
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.ai/t/rfc-improvements-to-automatic-quantization-for-bare-metal/7108/3)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
19 matches
Mail list logo
