Skip to content

[BugFix] Fix incremental detokenization perf issue #16963

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 22, 2025

Conversation

njhill
Copy link
Member

@njhill njhill commented Apr 22, 2025

max was meant to be min - could cause O(n^2) blowup in pathological cases

max was meant to be min - could cause O(n^2) blowup in pathological cases

Signed-off-by: Nick Hill <[email protected]>
@njhill njhill added the bug Something isn't working label Apr 22, 2025
Copy link

👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM project.

💬 Join our developer Slack at https://slack.vllm.ai to discuss your PR in #pr-reviews, coordinate on features in #feat- channels, or join special interest groups in #sig- channels.

Just a reminder: PRs would not trigger full CI run by default. Instead, it would only run fastcheck CI which starts running only a small and essential subset of CI tests to quickly catch errors. You can run other CI tests on top of those by going to your fastcheck build on Buildkite UI (linked in the PR checks section) and unblock them. If you do not have permission to unblock, ping simon-mo or khluu to add you in our Buildkite org.

Once the PR is approved and ready to go, your PR reviewer(s) can run CI to test the changes comprehensively before merging.

To run CI, PR reviewers can either: Add ready label to the PR or enable auto-merge.

🚀

@mergify mergify bot added the v1 label Apr 22, 2025
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ def __init__(self, tokenizer: PreTrainedTokenizerFast,
prompt_suffix = request.prompt_token_ids
prompt_len = len(prompt_suffix)
if prompt_len > 4:
for i in range(4, max(prompt_len + 1, 32)):
for i in range(4, min(prompt_len + 1, 24)):
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Where does 24 come from? Can we use smaller numbers like 5?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's to try to find a small suffix to start from, or else it has to loop over the entire prompt below decoding the tokens one-by-one, which could be very long.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, does it mean we can't use smaller numbers?

Copy link
Collaborator

@WoosukKwon WoosukKwon left a 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 fix! The performance looks normal after this PR:

============ Serving Benchmark Result ============
Successful requests:                     100       
Benchmark duration (s):                  45.27     
Total input tokens:                      1000000   
Total generated tokens:                  20000     
Request throughput (req/s):              2.21      
Output token throughput (tok/s):         441.79    
Total Token throughput (tok/s):          22531.15  
---------------Time to First Token----------------
Mean TTFT (ms):                          974.65    
Median TTFT (ms):                        413.66    
P99 TTFT (ms):                           2323.33   
-----Time per Output Token (excl. 1st token)------
Mean TPOT (ms):                          66.89     
Median TPOT (ms):                        77.80     
P99 TPOT (ms):                           83.48     
---------------Inter-token Latency----------------
Mean ITL (ms):                           66.89     
Median ITL (ms):                         27.12     
P99 ITL (ms):                            246.34    
==================================================

@WoosukKwon WoosukKwon added the ready ONLY add when PR is ready to merge/full CI is needed label Apr 22, 2025
@WoosukKwon WoosukKwon enabled auto-merge (squash) April 22, 2025 06:34
@WoosukKwon WoosukKwon merged commit e4d6144 into vllm-project:main Apr 22, 2025
62 checks passed
@njhill njhill deleted the fix-inc-detok branch April 22, 2025 10:15
frieda-huang pushed a commit to frieda-huang/vllm that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2025
jikunshang pushed a commit to jikunshang/vllm that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2025
lk-chen pushed a commit to lk-chen/vllm that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2025
adobrzyn pushed a commit to HabanaAI/vllm-fork that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2025
RichardoMrMu pushed a commit to RichardoMrMu/vllm that referenced this pull request May 12, 2025
minpeter pushed a commit to minpeter/vllm that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working ready ONLY add when PR is ready to merge/full CI is needed v1
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants