This post suggests there is a regression from 1.1.0 to 1.2.1 related to MKLDNN
integration: https://discuss.mxnet.io/t/mxnet-1-2-1-module-get-outputs/1882
The error is related to MKLDNN layout not being converted back to MXNet layout
in some operator: " !IsMKLDNNData() We can’t generate TBlob for MKLDNN data.
Please use Reorder2Default() to generate a new NDArray first"
Sina
On 9/30/18, 6:55 PM, "Steffen Rochel" <steffenroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Patrick.
Updated roadmap and next release content.
Patrick - suggest to send a reminder to review the design doc and collect
feedback.
Are there still known issues or gaps before we declare MKL-DNN integration
as GA?
Regards,
Steffen
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM Zhao, Patric <patric.z...@intel.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Steffen.
>
> Regarding the next release note, two items from our side:
>
> 1. (-remove) MKL-DNN integration is done. I think we can remove this item.
> 2. (+add) MKL-DNN based graph optimization and quantization by subgraph
> Design doc:
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Graph+Optimization+and+Quantization+based+on+subgraph+and+MKL-DNN
> Lead Contributor: Patric Zhao, https://github.com/pengzhao-intel/
>
> Regarding the Roadmap
> (+add) Q1 2019: MKL-DNN RNN API supports
>
> BR,
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Patric
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2018 11:31 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Next MXNet release
> >
> > Sorry I meant to say next 'Regarding the *minor* release'.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:27 AM kellen sunderland <
> > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for transparently setting a rough timeline Steffen. I think
> > > this will go a long way in helping the community plan their work, even
> > > if the details change somewhat on the road to the release.
> > >
> > > Regarding the major release: I would propose we unify TensorRT with
> > > the subgraph operator work.
> > >
> > > Regarding the patch release: There were a few minor stack/buffer
> > > overflows exposed by ASAN that have been addressed. It's probably a
> > > good idea to include them in a patch release, as they at best result
> > > in non-deterministic behaviour.
> > >
> > > -Kellen
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 1:39 AM Steffen Rochel
> > > <steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I updated
> > >>
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+f
> > >> or+next+MXNet+Release
> > >> ,
> > >> removed the completed items from 1.3 release and would like to kick
> > >> off discussion about the next release. Please suggest what you would
> > >> like to see included in the next release together with link to design
> > >> proposal (appropriately for the size and complexity of the proposal)
> > >> or suggest changes.
> > >> I suggest to target the next release for December 2018 to frame the
> > >> discussion.
> > >> Lets include review of
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Roadmap -
> > >> time to update and discuss changes.
> > >>
> > >> From the 1.3 release we had discussion regarding
> > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11849 and resolution
> > >> in
> > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12412 .
> > >> Are you aware of critical issues and feedback from user which we
> > >> should consider for a potential 1.3.1 patch release. Should we
> > >> include PR 12412 in a potential patch release?
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Steffen
> > >>
> > >
>
