REVIEW 2 cited by
Hardware-Efficient Attention for Fast Decoding
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Hardware-Efficient Attention for Fast Decoding
read the original abstract
LLM decoding is bottlenecked for large batches and long contexts by loading the key-value (KV) cache from high-bandwidth memory, which inflates per-token latency, while the sequential nature of decoding limits parallelism. We analyze the interplay among arithmetic intensity, parallelization, and model quality and question whether current architectures fully exploit modern hardware. This work redesigns attention to perform more computation per byte loaded from memory to maximize hardware efficiency without trading off parallel scalability. We first propose Grouped-Tied Attention (GTA), a simple variant that combines and reuses key and value states, reducing memory transfers without compromising model quality. We then introduce Grouped Latent Attention (GLA), a parallel-friendly latent attention paired with low-level optimizations for fast decoding while maintaining high model quality. Experiments show that GTA matches Grouped-Query Attention (GQA) quality while using roughly half the KV cache and that GLA matches Multi-head Latent Attention (MLA) and is easier to shard. Our optimized GLA kernel is up to 2$\times$ faster than FlashMLA, for example, in a speculative decoding setting when the query length exceeds one. Furthermore, by fetching a smaller KV cache per device, GLA reduces end-to-end latency and increases throughput in online serving benchmarks by up to 2$\times$.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Think Before You Grid-Search: Floor-First Triage for LLM Serving
A five-dimensional resource-vector floor model computes latency bounds and capacity walls for LLM serving, predicting when TP16 or EP16+DP attention layouts dominate based on operating point.
-
Think Before You Grid-Search: Floor-First Triage for LLM Serving
LLM serving should triage by five-resource analytical floors and wall ordering, not grid search; on 16×H20, TP16 is capacity-capped at ~70 while EP+DP attention reaches ~644 concurrent 8K requests.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.