Skip to content

Conversation

@varungup90
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@varungup90 varungup90 changed the title Add prefix cache aware routing WIP: Add prefix cache aware routing Feb 7, 2025
@varungup90 varungup90 changed the title WIP: Add prefix cache aware routing Add prefix cache aware routing Feb 7, 2025
end = len(unMatchedTokens)
}
chunk := unMatchedTokens[i:end]
prefixHash := xxhash.Sum64(IntArrayToByteArray(chunk))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

here. it just consider the current block size? just like to confirm this is not 100% same as vLLM's solution right? their 1st block hash is part of 2nd hash input

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, hash only for current block. No link list kind of behavior that vllm has. For our usecase we do not need that link list behavior.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if that case, we need to do up to O(n) calculations? n=number of blocks

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@varungup90 varungup90 Feb 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. If you are referring to that link list behavior could prevent O(n) calculations then it wont be the case. Total computations stays the same.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it's a little bit different. LinkedList you can do binary search etc for optimization. In this way, we can only do O(n).

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let me look into this, but for our usecase we need to evaluate all blocks to ensure a 50%+ hit rate.

Copy link
Collaborator

@gaocegege gaocegege left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some nits.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Jeffwan Jeffwan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's move a little bit faster and track those TODOs in separate issues

@varungup90 varungup90 merged commit f40c973 into main Feb 10, 2025
9 of 10 checks passed
@varungup90 varungup90 deleted the add-prefix-cache branch February 10, 2025 22:09
gangmuk pushed a commit to gangmuk/aibrix-gangmuk that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2025
* Add prefix cache aware routing

* end to end stiching

* fix lint errors

* nit

* add integ test for prefix caching

* add constants

* address review comments

* add prefix cache eviction

* add unit test for prefix cache eviction
Yaegaki1Erika pushed a commit to Yaegaki1Erika/aibrix that referenced this pull request Jul 23, 2025
* Add prefix cache aware routing

* end to end stiching

* fix lint errors

* nit

* add integ test for prefix caching

* add constants

* address review comments

* add prefix cache eviction

* add unit test for prefix cache eviction
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants