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

Parameter stats_path='.' missing for the SimulatedConv2d #21

Open
isai-roman opened this issue Mar 30, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Parameter stats_path='.' missing for the SimulatedConv2d #21

isai-roman opened this issue Mar 30, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@isai-roman
Copy link

Hello,

We are currently testing STONNE to simulate some neural network architectures. We have a question, in the README.md file you mentioned a parameter call stats_path inside the SimulatedConv2d operation (i.e. I guess it is in the SimulatedLinear as well). However we could not find any parameter with this name in SimulatedConv.py or in simulatedLinear.py. Could you please update if there are plans to implement this functionality? Your help is much appreciated.

Regards,

Isai Roman.

@Adrian-2105
Copy link
Collaborator

Adrian-2105 commented May 6, 2023

Hi, sorry for the late response.

Thanks for informing us about that functionality missing on the other STONNE PyTorch extensions. We will try to include it in the future but at the moment we cannot include them as we are a bit pressed with other, more priority tasks.

In the meanwhile, I recommend you just run an extra command to move the results to the folder you prefer. For each simulation, STONNE generates two output files: a .counters and a .txt file. Just move/copy them to the folder you want. Sadly, it's the only solution I can offer you at this moment, but we will implement that on the future

@Adrian-2105 Adrian-2105 added the enhancement New feature or request label May 6, 2023
@isai-roman
Copy link
Author

Hi Adrian,

No problem. In the meanwhile I got a deep dive in the code and I can handle it by myself, but I wanted to cross check with you guys to avoid double work. Thanks!

Regards,
Isai.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants