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

Add a rule about DLRM training data shuffling #441

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

johntran-nv
Copy link
Contributor

@johntran-nv johntran-nv commented Apr 21, 2021

Shuffling rules about DLRM were not clear enough in the v0.7 round and they left a lot of room for interpretation. This update makes a clear rule that is easy to follow and should not impact convergence or performance of DLRM implementations.

This was actually part of #411, which we discussed, but I mistakenly closed that thinking it was only about packing, which we no longer are using that PR for. This is cleaner to break out data shuffling into its own PR, anyway.

Shuffling rules about DLRM were not clear enough in the v0.7 round and they left a lot of room for interpretation. This update makes a clear rule that is easy to follow and should not impact convergence or performance of DLRM implementations.
@github-actions
Copy link

MLCommons CLA bot All contributors have signed the MLCommons CLA ✍️ ✅

@johntran-nv
Copy link
Contributor Author

+emizan@google.com, +deepak.r.canchi@intel.com, could you please review/approve?

@johntran-nv
Copy link
Contributor Author

Deepak suggested that it is too late for v1.0 to change this, which is fair. Let's defer discussion to v1.1.

Separately, it looks like I inadvertently merged this, maybe as part of another PR. I'll go fix that now as well.

@ShriyaPalsamudram
Copy link
Contributor

Closing due to inactivity.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 24, 2024
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.

3 participants