📊 docs: add XAttention offload profiling analysis for 32K context
- Profile XAttn vs Full attention using nsys NVTX markers - Key finding: estimate (41%) + find_blocks (37%) dominate, compute only 21% - Chunk7 comparison: XAttn (38ms) vs Full (35ms) - XAttn slightly slower - Identify optimization opportunities: reduce find_blocks overhead, merge estimate passes Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code) via [Happy](https://happy.engineering) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-Authored-By: Happy <yesreply@happy.engineering>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ Nano-vLLM is a lightweight vLLM implementation (~1,200 lines) for fast offline L
|
||||
| [`docs/xattn_density_types.md`](docs/xattn_density_types.md) | 📊 Compute vs Comm density: BSA block (128) vs CPU block (4096) 粒度,聚合效应导致 comm=100% |
|
||||
| [`docs/xattn_density_alignment_verification.md`](docs/xattn_density_alignment_verification.md) | ✅ VERIFIED: GPU-only vs Offload density 对齐验证 (32K 差异 0.37%, 64K 差异 0.09%) |
|
||||
| [`docs/test_ruler_usage_guide.md`](docs/test_ruler_usage_guide.md) | 📖 GUIDE: test_ruler.py 使用指南,RULER benchmark 测试命令,已验证的命令示例 |
|
||||
| [`docs/xattn_offload_profiling_32k.md`](docs/xattn_offload_profiling_32k.md) | 📊 PROFILE: XAttn vs Full 32K nsys 分析,estimate 占 41%,find_blocks 占 37%,compute 仅 21% |
|
||||
|
||||
## Rules Index
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user