-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 74.2k
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
CudnnLSTM dropout takes no effect #6466
Comments
If we do get dropout support, can we get recurrent dropout, as that's the form that seems to actually help. Similar to what's in LayerNormBasicLSTMCell. |
Any updates on this? Not having any dropout support for cuDNN-based RNNs seems really limiting, especially considering how much further ahead PyTorch support is for this. This isn't exactly a new or rarely used feature. |
What's actually involved in adding (input) dropout support? Is it just wiring the places in this file which are marked with |
Hi all:
I tried the FusedBlockLSTM in tf.contrib.rnn in Tensorflow V1.0, the speed is almost same with CudnnLSTM. And the FusedBlockLSTM can support Dropout, and is easier to use.
… 在 2017年4月22日,上午5:36,Mohammed AlQuraishi ***@***.***> 写道:
What's actually involved in adding (input) dropout support? Is it just wiring the places in this file <https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/tensorflow/contrib/cudnn_rnn/kernels/cudnn_rnn_ops.cc#L701> which are marked with /*dropout*/?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6466 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARpmyx4oomxYmgcQB-PXvAat4tW0Uhvbks5rySFTgaJpZM4LUiQt>.
|
My experience is very different. I still see a 3x gap between FusedBlockLSTM and CudnnLSTM, so I would still think this is very useful to have. And the issue is that the feature is present as an option, but it doesn't actually do anything. So it's very misleading as it is. |
What’s your tensorflow version? I found the new V1.0 is faster than V0.1x
… 在 2017年4月23日,下午8:52,Mohammed AlQuraishi ***@***.***> 写道:
My experience is very different. I still see a 3x gap between FusedBlockLSTM and CudnnLSTM, so I would still think this is very useful to have. And the issue is that the feature is present as an option, but it doesn't actually do anything.
—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6466 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARpmyyzaGa3VGqyFWY561JLgDVMC6n1Iks5ry0mkgaJpZM4LUiQt>.
|
TF 1.1rc2. And like I mentioned there's not just a performance difference but a bona fide bug, because the CudnnLSTM API exposes a dropout option that does not do anything. If you don't mind reopen the ticket. Otherwise I'll start a new ticket. FYI this is on a Pascal Titan X with a bidirectional LSTM of 800 units (each way) and 700 timesteps. |
The dropout is still needed, reopen again. |
CudnnRNN dropout change is submitted, please keep an eye on the nightly builds. |
@protoget has this been resolved? |
@protoget I see your commit last May, but I just tried again with TF 1.4.0rc0 and dropout still doesn't seem to do anything. |
@skye @alquraishi |
My environment is: Tensorflow 0.11.0rc2, in unbuntu 16.04, cuda8.0, cudnn5.1, GPU is GTX1080.
I am using the CudnnLSTM from tensorflow.contrib.cudnn_rnn package. I found that the dropout setting in CudnnLSTM seems take no effect, and I checked that there is no test for dropout in op unit test. So I write a simple code to test it, the code is below:
And the result is:
From the result I see that the cudnn_dropout = 0.5 takes no effect, the result is always same with cudnn_dropout = 0.0.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: