-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.5k
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
[SpecDecode] Support FlashInfer in DraftModelRunner #6926
Conversation
👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM project. Once the PR is approved and ready to go, please make sure to run full CI as it is required to merge (or just use auto-merge). To run full CI, you can do one of these:
🚀 |
/ready |
Thanks for the PR! A question I have is we currently have a guard to make sure only FlashAttention can use draft model runner, so if you use FlashInfer, vLLM shouldn't use draft model runner. I'm curious how this PR could fix the issue you mentioned. |
@comaniac Thank you for your interest on this PR! Please let me explain the purpose of this PR first, and then I'll describe the issues it addresses. 🙇 Purpose of this PRIndeed, the current Speculative Decoding in vLLM selects the FlashAttention as a default backend. However, I found that recently @LiuXiaoxuanPKU has been working on integrating FlashInfer as a backend in vLLM and extending support to CUDAGraph for general LLM inference (#4353, #4628). Additionally, according to the Speculative Decoding (with Batch Expansion, I guess...) experiments conducted by @cadedaniel, it was confirmed that using FlashInfer resulted in lower latency compared to other techniques. I anticipate that FlashInfer will be used as the vLLM Speculative Decoding backend in the future. Although, implementing FlashInfer with CUDA Graph seems really challenging. Therefore, I did PR modifying the code to enable the use of FlashInfer as the backend for vLLM Speculative Decoding in the current Addressed issueThe solution of the issue was simple. I copied the necessary "flashinfer" related code blocks from the
Although it may take a considerable amount of time for FlashInfer to be integrated officially into the Speculative Decoding in vLLM, I believe this PR addresses bugs that could arise during that process. If the answer is not what you were looking for, please feel free to ask additional questions or close this PR. 🙇 |
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.
Otherwise LGTM. Can you add a unit test?
# (bong-furiosa) | ||
# Resolve the issue of the wrapper variable | ||
# not being defined during the execution of | ||
# FlashInfer backend Speculative Decoding. |
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 comment is not necessary as the code itself is straightforward.
# (bong-furiosa) | ||
# Resolve the issue of the wrapper variable | ||
# not being defined during the execution of | ||
# FlashInfer backend Speculative Decoding. |
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.
Ditto. Unnecessary comments.
# (bong-furiosa) | ||
# Resolve the issue of the wrapper variable | ||
# not being defined during the execution of | ||
# FlashInfer backend Speculative Decoding. |
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.
Ditto. Unnecessary comments.
if self.attn_backend.get_name() == "flashinfer": | ||
assert model_input.attn_metadata is not None | ||
assert model_input.input_tokens is not None | ||
if self.flashinfer_decode_workspace_buffer is None: | ||
self.flashinfer_decode_workspace_buffer = torch.empty( | ||
FLASHINFER_WORKSPACE_BUFFER_SIZE, | ||
dtype=torch.uint8, | ||
device=self.device) | ||
self.flashinfer_decode_wrapper = \ | ||
BatchDecodeWithPagedKVCacheWrapper( | ||
self.flashinfer_decode_workspace_buffer, "NHD") | ||
self.flashinfer_prefill_workspace_buffer = torch.empty( | ||
FLASHINFER_WORKSPACE_BUFFER_SIZE, | ||
dtype=torch.uint8, | ||
device=self.device) | ||
self.flashinfer_prefill_wrapper = \ | ||
BatchPrefillWithPagedKVCacheWrapper( | ||
self.flashinfer_prefill_workspace_buffer, "NHD") | ||
|
||
model_input.attn_metadata.prefill_wrapper = \ | ||
self.flashinfer_prefill_wrapper | ||
if model_input.attn_metadata.use_cuda_graph: | ||
batch_size = model_input.input_tokens.shape[0] | ||
model_input.attn_metadata.decode_wrapper = self.graph_runners[ | ||
model_input. | ||
virtual_engine][batch_size].flashinfer_decode_wrapper | ||
else: | ||
model_input.attn_metadata.decode_wrapper = \ | ||
self.flashinfer_decode_wrapper | ||
model_input.attn_metadata.begin_forward() |
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 should be in the "else" branch above, because the if branch will always use flash attention backend.
@comaniac Thank you for the advice on refining the code! Unfortunately, I do not have the time or ability to write unit test for the modified code... Therefore, would it be okay to expect that vLLM experts or other users write and confirm the unit test code? 🤔 🙇 |
bf9f6ac
to
06d30a4
Compare
/ready |
2b6b45f
to
df14b01
Compare
@comaniac Sorry for being late. I kept getting a failure log while checking the entrypoints(?) in fastcheck. |
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.
Merge this PR first given that it doesn't fail existing cases. I'll try to find a time to add a unit test later.
Signed-off-by: Alvant <[email protected]>
FILL IN THE PR DESCRIPTION HERE
FIX #6885
BEFORE SUBMITTING, PLEASE READ THE CHECKLIST BELOW AND FILL IN THE DESCRIPTION ABOVE
This PR resolves the
benchmark_serving.py
error for Speculative Decoding when using FlashInfer Backend.After fixing, we can see that the benchmark results are correctly displayed in both FlashAttn Backend and FlashInfer Backend.
FLASH_ATTN backend
FLASHINFER Backend
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!