comparison doc/v2_planning/dataset.txt @ 1109:29b48deb6a84

reply/comment regarding the GPU and datasets
author Razvan Pascanu <r.pascanu@gmail.com>
date Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:01:16 -0400
parents 546bd0ccb0e4
children 4797a4cb73e1
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
1108:c5c7ba805a2f 1109:29b48deb6a84
341 341
342 OD asks: Ok, so why would the dataset have to be responsible for providing a 342 OD asks: Ok, so why would the dataset have to be responsible for providing a
343 shared variable? Why wouldn't the learner just create this shared variable 343 shared variable? Why wouldn't the learner just create this shared variable
344 internally and copy into it the data provided by the dataset? 344 internally and copy into it the data provided by the dataset?
345 345
346 RP replies: Sure, the learner could take care of all this. Note though that the
347 learner should take care to divide the dataset into chunks that fit in the
348 GPU memory ( in case of a large dataset) and then take care of updating the
349 shared variables acording to the current chunk. Personally I feel like all
350 this data division, management and so on should be done by the dataset.
351 It feels more natural that way. For example assume you have a dataset that
352 is composed of a time series and some static data ( carre-tech heart beat
353 data is a good example). The static data is small enough so that you could
354 always store on the GPU, and you would only need to split the time series.
355 For the learner to do this ( since it gets the same interface from any
356 dataset object) would be like and if <this case> then, while for the
357 dataset is just a different class. But I'm happy to have all this GPU stuff
358 send to the learner as well if everybody else believe that is better.
359