-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Weight Sharing #546
Merged
Merged
Weight Sharing #546
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shelhamer, If I understood correctly, you add up all the diffs to the owner_diff and then update the parameters accordingly, right? Does it imply if the layer owning this blob is not contributing to the loss, the updated diff from other layers that use this blob but don't own it, will not be used?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We either must change the ownership from the first layer that mentions the param to the first layer that mentions the param and participates in the loss, or we need to fix the
layer_need_backward_[layer_id]
accordingly. Is my concern valid?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ashafaei Was this fixed in the current version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ashafaei @abhi2610 This was never actually an issue although it was worth raising since you need to know how the
Net
,Solver
andBlob
s cooperate. The loss / backward logic only decides whether backward is computed for a layer or not.Net::Update()
is always called by the solver, all of the shared weight params will accumulate their diff with the owner in the loop at 478, and thenBlob::Update()
will always be called for every weight owner as in the loop at 501. This does bring up whyBlob::Update()
is unconditional when it could be skipped but that's another matter. Thanks @jeffdonahue for discussion.