Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 17, 2023. It is now read-only.

Conversation

piiswrong
Copy link
Contributor

Description

(Brief description on what this PR is about)

Checklist

Essentials

  • Passed code style checking (make lint)
  • Changes are complete (i.e. I finished coding on this PR)
  • All changes have test coverage:
  • Unit tests are added for small changes to verify correctness (e.g. adding a new operator)
  • Nightly tests are added for complicated/long-running ones (e.g. changing distributed kvstore)
  • Build tests will be added for build configuration changes (e.g. adding a new build option with NCCL)
  • Code is well-documented:
  • For user-facing API changes, API doc string has been updated.
  • For new C++ functions in header files, their functionalities and arguments are documented.
  • For new examples, README.md is added to explain the what the example does, the source of the dataset, expected performance on test set and reference to the original paper if applicable
  • To the my best knowledge, examples are either not affected by this change, or have been fixed to be compatible with this change

Changes

  • Feature1, tests, (and when applicable, API doc)
  • Feature2, tests, (and when applicable, API doc)

Comments

  • If this change is a backward incompatible change, why must this change be made.
  • Interesting edge cases to note here


std::vector<Engine::VarHandle> vars;
for (const auto& i : arrs) vars.push_back(i.var());
Engine::Get()->PushSync([=](RunContext rctx) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will worker thread and main thread push operations to the engine at the same time?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's fine. Engine is thread safe

@marcoabreu
Copy link
Contributor

Just FYI, every GPU-instance has two GPUs present, so feel free to write a test for this case.

@szha szha added the Bug label Jan 4, 2018
cv_.wait(lock, [&] {return !q_.empty() || destructing_;});
while (!q_.empty()) {
auto fn = q_.front();
lock.unlock();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What happens when after we unlock, something is pushed to the queue ? Will we pop the correct item from the queue ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

there is on 1 consumer thread, so its ok

@piiswrong piiswrong merged commit 004dead into apache:master Jan 5, 2018
szha pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 5, 2018
* refactor custom op

* fix

* fix

* fix

* fix
yuxiangw pushed a commit to yuxiangw/incubator-mxnet that referenced this pull request Jan 25, 2018
* refactor custom op

* fix

* fix

* fix

* fix
rahul003 pushed a commit to rahul003/mxnet that referenced this pull request Jun 4, 2018
* refactor custom op

* fix

* fix

* fix

* fix
zheng-da pushed a commit to zheng-da/incubator-mxnet that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2018
* refactor custom op

* fix

* fix

* fix

* fix
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants