> How do you think the difference between MicroTVM and MCUNet? Hi @wang-y-z. I wasn't aware of this work until now. Thanks for the pointer! It's a bit embarrassing to see them compare against the old runtime that was designed purely for AutoTVM purposes (and it only _happened_ to be able to run entire models). Because of that design goal, it makes no use of flash memory, so it runs out of memory very quickly 😅.
I'd say TinyNAS isn't comparable to µTVM, since µTVM doesn't currently do any architecture search. You could imagine using only TinyNAS to produce a model, then importing the result and running it with µTVM. TinyEngine is an interesting point of comparison, since it uses a codegen-based approach, and this is the approach we want to move towards going forward. For the past few months, we've focused on strengthening support for autotuning and deployment with the C graph runtime. However, as we look at smaller devices, there are a lot of mechanisms in the graph runtime that cause unnecessarily high memory usage (e.g., runtime overhead and JSON parsing). With the prototype Relay AoT compiler being merged soon (#6219), we'll have a good starting point for an entirely codegen-based approach. Though the codegen approach seems to give them the most benefit (Figure 4), the model-adaptive/memory-aware optimizations in TinyEngine look compelling as well, and it would certainly be interesting to see how they could be implemented in TVM. > By the way, can you tell me what's going on about MicroTVM on RICS-V device > and if you have plan to support the User defined extensions for RV? We haven't prioritized RISC-V-specific features, since we're still building up all of the device-agnostic infrastructure. Is there a use case for user-defined extensions you have in mind? -- 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/2563#issuecomment-670653285
