6 posts tagged with "Scheduling"

How the llm-d router balances KV-cache affinity against token load

The llm-d router's default configuration has changed to something an operator can reason about, built on a single methodology: token-aware routing. The scheduler prioritizes KV-cache affinity, keeping each request on the endpoint that already holds its prefix, unless the load on that endpoint exceeds a calibrated limit; past the limit it ignores affinity and picks the endpoint by load alone. Load is measured in tokens matched to the workload's bottleneck, giving two configurations: for prefill-bound traffic (long prompts), prefix-cache affinity + token load (prefix-cache-affinity-filter + token-load-scorer), routing on uncached prefill tokens in flight; for decode-bound traffic (long outputs), prefix-cache affinity + active requests (prefix-cache-affinity-filter + active-request-scorer), routing on active streams. We call each pairing of the affinity filter with a load signal a bottleneck-matched configuration (or matched configuration for short).

Two failure modes motivated the change. The first is the previous default itself: a four-signal weighted blend (prefix-cache match, queue depth, KV utilization, LRU) whose emergent behavior was hard to predict and harder to tune. The second is the hot spotting most routers suffer from over-indexing on KV-cache affinity: affinity concentrates traffic on cache-warm endpoints, and without an explicit saturation release the warm endpoint keeps absorbing load past the point where a cold endpoint would serve the request faster. Token-aware routing pairs one signal with one bottleneck and one calibrated limit, so the scheduler is legible: an operator can predict what it will do, why it will do it, and how it will degrade under load.

The results back the change. On the benchmarks below, the matched configurations sustain 2–3× the throughput of Kubernetes Service round-robin on prefill-bound workloads while holding TTFT through the operating range, and hold parity or better everywhere else. The stack now ships as the default across llm-d's optimized-baseline, agentic-serving, multimodal-serving, and P/D-disaggregation guides, and it is running on production serving fleets, including Google Cloud Vertex AI, Red Hat, and Mistral.

llm-d's well-lit paths are tested, benchmarked recipes for serving large language models in production. The agentic-serving path starts with the workload and combines the capabilities it needs into a deployment for each accelerator. This post applies that pattern to GLM-5.2-FP8 on H200, using the 219 production Claude Code sessions in SemiAnalysis's Weka trace corpus.

GLM-5.2 is a 744B-parameter (39B active) mixture-of-experts model with 78 layers. Its Multi-head Latent Attention (MLA) stores one compressed latent instead of separate KV heads, so tensor parallelism cannot shard it: TP=8 keeps eight copies of the KV cache. Tensor-parallel all-reduce is also expensive across nodes: every layer performs the column-parallel, row-parallel, and all-reduce sequence twice. llm-d's Wide-EP path avoids both costs with data-parallel attention and expert-parallel MoE, making the KV budget viable for long-context agentic serving.

At a measured output rate of roughly 37-41 tokens per second per user, a 64-GPU llm-d deployment works out to $0.05 per million input tokens and $3.55 per million output tokens at an H200 rental rate of $2.71 per GPU-hour. Z.ai's public GLM-5.2 row lists $1.40 input and $4.40 output; Claude Opus 4.8 lists $5 input and $25 output. These figures assume sustained load and assign prefill rental to input and decode rental to output.

For most of the transformer era, the KV cache rested on a quiet assumption: one model, one uniform cache. Every layer attended the same way, every block was the same size, and everything built on top of the cache (allocators, offload connectors, schedulers) could treat it as a single pool.

Hybrid models broke this assumption. Many recent frontier and open-weight models increasingly mix attention types within a single model (full attention next to sliding-window, linear, or Mamba layers), making the cache heterogeneous: different layers now hold different amounts of state, in different shapes, with different reuse rules. A cache block that used to be allocated as one uniform unit is now constituted of several distinct parts.

To serve a hybrid model efficiently, an AI inference platform has to handle that heterogeneity in at least three aspects of the stack:

• GPU Memory Allocation: How the cache is laid out and allocated on the GPU. vLLM solved this with its Hybrid Memory Allocator (HMA), rebuilt around a unified allocator (see Hybrid Models as First-Class Citizens in vLLM).
• KV Offloading: Extending the KV cache to CPU and storage. Without HMA awareness, an offloading connector turns the HMA off and therefore discards the GPU memory improvements or potential data movement savings.
• KV-Aware Routing: Sending each request to the right model-server replica. Ignoring hybrid memory structure may erroneously list nodes as having or not having the required KV data based on information stemming from just part of the layers.

vLLM's HMA solved hybrid GPU memory allocation when handling a single vLLM instance. This post shows how llm-d extends that to tiered KV cache management - including KV offloading to CPU and storage, and KV-aware request routing - significantly improving throughput and latency at scale for hybrid models.

Most production inference clusters today are single-vendor because that is often the simplest way to configure and operate a cluster.

That is starting to change. Procurement cycles bring new generations alongside older ones, supply planning spans multiple accelerator options, and cost/performance profiles differ by workload. Real production fleets are accumulating heterogeneity whether or not the architecture planned for it.

This is an opportunity to unlock real value: different accelerator classes can be matched to workload requirements, stranded capacity gets reclaimed, and operators gain more flexibility in capacity planning. The case is stronger still for sovereign and on-premise deployments, where data residency, regulatory alignment, and the long-term economics of high-volume inference make local fleet optimization especially important.

Making that work in practice is a non-trivial systems problem. Each accelerator stack brings its own optimized drivers, firmware, container images, runtime settings, and attention kernels. A coherent serving layer needs to preserve those platform-specific optimizations while still giving operators one control plane for routing, observability, and policy.

llm-d was born Kubernetes-native. Its workers are Deployments, its endpoints live in an InferencePool, and its guides assume a cluster is one kubectl away. That made sense: Kubernetes is where most production inference runs, and building on it gave llm-d a head start on networking, lifecycle, and scale.

But the thing that makes llm-d llm-d - KV-cache-aware scoring, prefix-cache affinity, prefill/decode disaggregation, flow control - was never fundamentally about Kubernetes. It is routing intelligence. It reasons about the state of a fleet of model servers and decides where each request should go. Nothing about that logic needs an API server. The dependency on Kubernetes was incidental, inherited from how endpoints happened to be discovered, not essential to what the router actually does.

This post is about pulling those two things apart. We introduce the EndpointDiscovery abstraction in the llm-d router that separates what endpoints exist from how to route across them, and the first plugin built on it - file discovery - which lets the full routing stack run as a plain process or container with no Kubernetes anywhere in sight: on an HPC cluster, inside a Ray job, on a bare-metal rack, or on your laptop.

Figure 1: The big picture - one routing stack under every platform. llm-d discovers endpoints through its EndpointDiscovery module (Kube Discovery against an InferencePool, File Discovery against everything else) and serves requests the same way on Kubernetes, Slurm, Ray, or bare metal (inference, HPC, and RL rollout workloads: veRL, SkyRL, prime-rl). The rest of this post explains how.

Not all LLM requests cost the same. A short prompt might complete in milliseconds, while a long one can occupy a GPU for seconds. If we can predict how long a request will take on each candidate server before dispatching it, we can make substantially better routing decisions. This post describes a system that does exactly that: a lightweight ML model trained online from live traffic that replaces manually tuned heuristic weights with direct latency predictions.