-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
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
[Core] Optimize sampler get_logprobs #4594
Conversation
@@ -769,27 +769,24 @@ def _get_logprobs( | |||
selected_logprobs = logprobs[[ | |||
query_indices_gpu, | |||
next_token_ids_gpu, | |||
]] | |||
]].to('cpu', non_blocking=True) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this can overlap device transfer with torch.topk
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
thanks for the quick review @Yard1 ! |
|
||
# Find prompt/sample logprobs. | ||
prompt_logprobs_per_seq_group: List[Optional[PromptLogprobs]] = [] | ||
sample_logprobs_per_seq_group: List[SampleLogprobs] = [] | ||
top_logprob_idx = 0 | ||
selected_logprobs_idx = 0 | ||
|
||
# Make sure non-blocking .to("cpu", non_blocking=True) is finished | ||
assert selected_logprobs.shape[0] == ranks.shape[0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rkooo567 Do we still need this assert since non-blocking transfer code is removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for catching! we don't need comments, but assert is kind of still needed. Removed the comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Update; non_blocking=True for GPU -> CPU doesn't guarantee to synchronize when tolist() is called, so it is not safe. I used the blocking op instead. This decreases the perf improvement a bit (0.5~ish)
|
||
# Find prompt/sample logprobs. | ||
prompt_logprobs_per_seq_group: List[Optional[PromptLogprobs]] = [] | ||
sample_logprobs_per_seq_group: List[SampleLogprobs] = [] | ||
top_logprob_idx = 0 | ||
selected_logprobs_idx = 0 | ||
|
||
# Make sure non-blocking .to("cpu", non_blocking=True) is finished | ||
assert selected_logprobs.shape[0] == ranks.shape[0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for catching! we don't need comments, but assert is kind of still needed. Removed the comment
As an alternative, you could use a cuda stream for this and do a stream synchronize before the tolist, or just forget the separate cuda stream and just use a full torch cuda synchronize if that wouldn't create a performance issue. |
get_logprobs happen after sampling, which is the point where GPU <> CPU sync happens. It means overhead from get_logprobs are going to be applied to e2e overhead.
I found get_logprobs is pretty inefficient at large batch size, which could be pretty common. On batch size 256, get_logprobs take about 5~6ms.
This optimizes the get_logprobs. After this, I found the overhead becomes 2.1ms for get_logprobs.
There are 2 optimizations
PR Checklist (Click to Expand)
Thank you for your contribution to vLLM! Before submitting the pull request, please ensure the PR meets the following criteria. This helps vLLM maintain the code quality and improve the efficiency of the review process.
PR Title and Classification
Only specific types of PRs will be reviewed. The PR title is prefixed appropriately to indicate the type of change. Please use one of the following:
[Bugfix]
for bug fixes.[CI/Build]
for build or continuous integration improvements.[Doc]
for documentation fixes and improvements.[Model]
for adding a new model or improving an existing model. Model name should appear in the title.[Frontend]
For changes on the vLLM frontend (e.g., OpenAI API server,LLM
class, etc.)[Kernel]
for changes affecting CUDA kernels or other compute kernels.[Core]
for changes in the core vLLM logic (e.g.,LLMEngine
,AsyncLLMEngine
,Scheduler
, etc.)[Hardware][Vendor]
for hardware-specific changes. Vendor name should appear in the prefix (e.g.,[Hardware][AMD]
).[Misc]
for PRs that do not fit the above categories. Please use this sparingly.Note: If the PR spans more than one category, please include all relevant prefixes.
Code Quality
The PR need to meet the following code quality standards:
format.sh
to format your code.docs/source/
if the PR modifies the user-facing behaviors of vLLM. It helps vLLM user understand and utilize the new features or changes.Notes for Large Changes
Please keep the changes as concise as possible. For major architectural changes (>500 LOC excluding kernel/data/config/test), we would expect a GitHub issue (RFC) discussing the technical design and justification. Otherwise, we will tag it with
rfc-required
and might not go through the PR.What to Expect for the Reviews
The goal of the vLLM team is to be a transparent reviewing machine. We would like to make the review process transparent and efficient and make sure no contributor feel confused or frustrated. However, the vLLM team is small, so we need to prioritize some PRs over others. Here is what you can expect from the review process:
action-required
label on the PR if there are changes required. The contributor should address the comments and ping the reviewer to re-review the PR.Thank You
Finally, thank you for taking the time to read these guidelines and for your interest in contributing to vLLM. Your contributions make vLLM a great tool for everyone!