> it seems you need to call `lower_call` twice (one in `TETranslator` and > another in `ScheduleGetter` ). In this case, seems like you still select the > schedule in `TETranslator`
So yes, I do call it twice and really this is a consequence of 'lower_call' also probably needing a similar refactor. What I'm actually doing is ignoring the schedule information in TETranslator even though the lower_call does provide it. That way the output of the TETranslator would just be a TE Compute DAG rather than a TE Schedule. I really like that Ansor acts directly on TE rather than Relay and think that's a pattern to work towards going forward with scheduling optimizations. > it sounds weird to select a compute by referring to the quality of its > corresponding TOPI schedule which you won’t apply. I agree with this. Perhaps we would need to provide TETranslator with a 'StrategySelector' that could be customized? For my envisioned use-case this happens to not be an issue, but I'd be interested in hearing opinions. In summary, I agree that there's probably some distance to go in completing this refactor to expose something truly flexible. Once I get some more view/opinions on the best direction to take, I can make a start on improving the WIP PR. --- [Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-refactor-the-compile-engine-to-expose-a-relay-te-translator/8417/3) to respond. You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode. To unsubscribe from these emails, [click here](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/email/unsubscribe/d8ea97d4379b6aa00100321f728daa2509c43bcae80711dc3cd55232aa49aba3).
