This is interesting work. I'm curious if the plan is that in the future
auto_scheduler would not rely on any new custom Relay ops for tuning subgraphs
like the example that is shown, i.e. it directly tunes a primitive function as
the user designates?
I'm working on a similar thing of subgraph
CC: @Hzfengsy @spectrometerHBH if you guys are interested
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-a-general-task-extraction-mechanism-for-auto-scheduler/8444/6)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [cli
Here are some more details about the interface change in this RFC. The new
added `use_topi_schedule` flag is propagated from the compile engine to
`relay._build`. As a result, this actually doesn't expose to users. The use
cases are the following:
1. Use TOPI schedule with fallback values (sa
This looks okay to me. But I have one comment because this sounds like we need
to add one more argument to the build interface which users may not need to
know the details. Another possible option is that we can bake it into
`PassContext` as a config. However, I understand that this configure
On Thursday, November 19 at 9 AM PT (16 UTC) we’ll be holding our next TVM
Community Meeting! The agenda, along with the instructions on joining by Zoom,
are in [this
document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bfE7Ydk43aMM3aiLf8GM7xEatPJwhj839ANfBheUJcM/edit).
You can also subscribe to the
Thanks for the comments.
> May I ask how the graph ends up with a `nn.conv2d + nn.relu + nn.conv2d +
> nn.relu` ? Is the graph going through a BYOC kind of partitioning (sorry if
> the question is naive)?
There is nothing to do with BYOC. My point is that Ansor opens the door to
subgraph-l
Hi @comaniac,
May I ask how the graph ends up with a `nn.conv2d + nn.relu + nn.conv2d +
nn.relu` ? Is the graph going through a BYOC kind of partitioning (sorry if the
question is naive)?
As for S1 vs S2, could we do both? Use an heuristic like "ignore the task
without any call node" and th
