Papers for
large-scale ai deployment teams
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Remote caching slowdowns addressed to speed long-context AI model loading
When the KV Cache Is Slower Than the GPU: Scaling Remote KV Tiers for Context-Parallel Prefill
Abstract: Reusing the attention KV cache across requests is a standard way to cut prefill cost in long-context LLM serving, and production systems increasingly back the per-engine cache with a remote tier shared by every engine. We study such a tier in a disaggregated deployment of GLM-5.3, an FP8 mixture-of-experts model with multi-head latent attention (MLA), on 8xB300 nodes running prefill context parallelism (PCP8). Enabling the remote tier (LMCache with a Valkey store) left median time-to-first-token unchanged but raised the 16k-token p99 from 3.96 s to 17.3 s. Replaying a production request stream on an isolated engine, we find that a remote hit took 0.88 s against 0.31 s to recompute the prompt, and that synchronous loading turned a hit-heavy stream into an unstable queue: p99 83.32 s with the GPUs 7% busy. A two-term cost model explains both: a hit pays off only if the tier delivers more than B* = sR (2.53 GB/s for this model and GPU), and a fixed per-hit engine cost (T0 ~ 0.33 s) means that hits on prompts shorter than about 17k tokens cannot beat recompute at any bandwidth. Guided by the model, we (i) shard the MLA KV store across PCP ranks, with a proof that the existing minimum-over-ranks lookup returns the longest cached prefix and a load protocol that can never desynchronize collectives; (ii) partition the remote tier by rank, one server instance per rank with no coordination, which raises GET bandwidth 6.3x to 10.76 GB/s; (iii) add asynchronous loading to the sharded store; and (iv) fix three client bugs that caused unbounded stalls. On the hit-heavy stream, with 98.5% of prompt tokens served from the remote tier, p99 falls from 83.32 s to 0.67 s. The sharded store raises prefill throughput by 14%, and by 34% together with an upstream kernel fix. All changes are submitted upstream to LMCache.
Shared cache reuse in LoRA adapters shows small quality tradeoffs and serving speed benefits
Shared-Prefix KV Reuse Across Standard LoRA Adapters: Quality and Serving Tradeoffs
Abstract: A common small-model deployment runs one shared backbone with several LoRA specialists that answer over the same context. Serving them naively re-prefills that shared context once per specialist. We study a narrow, practical question: for already-trained standard LoRA adapters -- not adapters retrained for cache compatibility -- how much task quality is preserved if the backbone's prefill KV cache is computed once and reused across specialists, and what does that buy in serving cost? On a Qwen3-1.7B backbone with two adapters (extractive QA on HotpotQA, arithmetic reasoning on GSM8K), we sweep the boundary at which the specialist takes over from the reused base cache and measure paired quality differences and serving cost. Full-prefix reuse had the lowest prefill cost and a small quality difference on held-out GSM8K (Delta = -4.6 EM at a 160-token budget; -3.0 at 320 tokens; -0.8 under a second training seed -- all favoring native, only the first excluding zero, and the magnitude not consistent). Partial recomputation provided no demonstrated advantage. Neither quality equivalence nor a general boundary-selection rule is established. We also report a closed-form ridge KV translator that did not beat direct reuse, and specialist-dependence contrasts whose intervals all include zero. The measured serving benefit is warm-cache time-to-first-token, which grows with context (~16x at 8K); two-branch peak memory was only 12% lower and, on inspection, the prefix was never physically shared across branches -- this implementation reuses KV values but copies their storage, so shared-cache memory savings are not achieved.