Skip to content
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

[onert] In-place Reshape and ExpandDims operation #12836

Open
hseok-oh opened this issue Apr 4, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

[onert] In-place Reshape and ExpandDims operation #12836

hseok-oh opened this issue Apr 4, 2024 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
area/onert ONE runtime

Comments

@hseok-oh
Copy link
Contributor

hseok-oh commented Apr 4, 2024

We are always using memcpy for Reshape and ExpandDims operation.
If these operation's input is used only once and updated shape does not require padding, we can skip copy operation.

For this, we need to modify memory allocation and tensor handling implementation.

@mbencer
Copy link
Contributor

mbencer commented Aug 29, 2024

Due to recommendation from #12814 (comment) I'm assigning myself to this issue ;)

@mbencer
Copy link
Contributor

mbencer commented Sep 23, 2024

@hseok-oh Could you please take a look at #14057?
I am not sure if you plan implementation similar to my draft or maybe more global approach (like creating common buffer during tensor creation). The second one approach has much larger affected area.

@hseok-oh hseok-oh moved this from Ready to Start to In Progress in [ONE] onert - LLM support Dec 9, 2024
@mbencer
Copy link
Contributor

mbencer commented Dec 16, 2024

@hseok-oh Handling of sharing memory for static shapes is already on master. Should dynamic shape support be processed also under this issue or is it better to create a separate issue for it?
BTW.: Should I treat dynamic shapes part as something with big priority?

@hseok-oh
Copy link
Contributor Author

hseok-oh commented Dec 16, 2024

@hseok-oh Handling of sharing memory for static shapes is already on master. Should dynamic shape support be processed also under this issue or is it better to create a separate issue for it?

It doesn't matter either way.

BTW.: Should I treat dynamic shapes part as something with big priority?

Treating dynamic shape is more useful. But considering its impact on performance, It may not has a very high priority.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/onert ONE runtime
Projects
Status: Todo
Status: In Progress
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants