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

why comment the frcnn_proposal_layer's Forward GPU implementation? #18

Open
sigfrid696 opened this issue Apr 21, 2021 · 5 comments
Open

Comments

@sigfrid696
Copy link

Hello,

I understand that this is a quite old repo, but I would like to know if the GPU implementation has some bug, since it is commented out.

Thanks

@sigfrid696
Copy link
Author

I did some tests after porting the implementation to my library...the implementation seems ok because it produces the same results as obtained by the proposal layer done fully on CPU. The only problem is that is significantly slower

@sigfrid696
Copy link
Author

Sorry I accidentally closed the issue...After doing some tests I found that only gpu nms processing of the proposal layer makes the overall process faster, the other parts of the layer remaining implemented on CPU...hope these conclusions can be of any help, if anyone is interested in the same algorithm

@makefile
Copy link
Owner

Yes, the GPU implementation in frcnn_proposal_layer.cu is not that efficient.

@sigfrid696
Copy link
Author

sigfrid696 commented Apr 26, 2021

Ok , thanks for the reply. After studying a bit the code, it doesn't seem related to the fact that is not an optimized algorithm. Probably some parts of the layer can be executed better on CPU, other on GPU, as the nms part, which is somehow similar to a convolution for the operations involved

@makefile
Copy link
Owner

Yes, you are right. The Soft-NMS operation is similar with this.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants