{"id":11340,"date":"2025-08-20T21:17:04","date_gmt":"2025-08-20T21:17:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voice.ai\/hub\/?p=11340"},"modified":"2025-09-15T19:13:24","modified_gmt":"2025-09-15T19:13:24","slug":"vllm-continuous-batching","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voice.ai\/hub\/tts\/vllm-continuous-batching\/","title":{"rendered":"How to Speed up AI Inference with vLLM Continuous Batching"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Facing long waits or unpredictable spikes when serving chat or assistant models? Conversational AI Companies<\/a> are leveraging vLLM Continuous Batching, which blends request queuing, dynamic batching, micro batching, and token streaming to raise throughput and tame tail latency on GPUs. This article shows practical ways to tune batching windows, batching policies, concurrency, and GPU utilization, so those exploring continuous batching for vLLM or optimizations for LLM inference speeds can achieve faster and more cost-effective results. Facing long waits when serving chat models? Try AI text to speech solutions<\/a> to get faster, lifelike audio responses for your users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Think of constant batching like a conveyor belt at a packing station. Instead of waiting until a whole cart is full before the belt moves, items keep sliding on and off the belt one at a time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n vLLM runs the model<\/a> at the same granularity: <\/p>\n\n\n\n This contrasts with static batching, where you wait for a fixed group to form and then run the whole sequence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What does that buy you? Requests start executing sooner, the GPU stays busy more of the time, and fewer cycles are wasted on padding. Latency for individual users drops because fast requests no longer wait behind slow ones. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Throughput rises because the GPU processes more useful work per second. And the user experience improves because responses arrive more quickly and consistently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Autoregressive generation produces tokens one at a time. For each new token, the model computes a query vector and then attends to keys and values produced for all past tokens. Computing those keys and values every step would be prohibitively expensive, so systems store them in a KV cache. For long prompts or long outputs, this cache becomes huge, and it must remain in memory while a request is being generated. That growth pattern makes memory management the single most considerable constraint on concurrent inference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The KV cache is large per sequence, grows dynamically as generation proceeds, and lives only for the duration of a request. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When you allocate one contiguous block<\/a> per request, you hit three problems at once: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Beam search and parallel sampling amplify the pain because many candidate sequences share a prefix, but naive systems copy entire caches for each branch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Allocating a big contiguous buffer for each request creates internal waste if the request ends short of the reserved length. Over time, allocations and frees of variable sizes scatter free chunks across GPU memory, creating external fragmentation. Even when enough total memory exists, no contiguous block may be available for a new request. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That causes: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Copying full caches for beams or samples produces long tail latency and heavy memory copying. These issues limit how many concurrent requests a server can accept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n vLLM schedules work at the step level. Incoming requests enter a queue. At each decoding step, the scheduler assembles a batch from active sequences and, if there is capacity, pulls new requests into that batch. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The GPU does one forward pass for every active sequence at that step. When a sequence emits the end of the sequence, it frees its slot quickly, and the next step can accept a new request in that place. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The system never idly waits<\/a> for an entire request group to finish before adding new work. This iteration-level scheduling reduces head-of-line blocking and minimizes padding overhead. It also forces memory allocation and deallocation to be fast and fine-grained, because active slots change every step.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PagedAttention splits each sequence cache into many small fixed-size blocks, and maps sequence logical blocks to physical blocks much like a page table in an OS. Physical blocks live in a free pool on GPU memory. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When a token produces new K and V vectors, vLLM writes them into the current logical block if space remains; otherwise, it grabs another physical block and updates the sequence block table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Attention kernels use the block table to gather the K and V vectors across non-contiguous physical blocks during the attention compute. When a sequence finishes, vLLM returns its physical blocks to the pool without needing a costly large free call.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fixed-sized blocks eliminate the need for large contiguous allocations, removing external fragmentation. Internal waste is limited to the tail block per sequence, which is small relative to the whole cache. Because multiple sequences can map their initial logical blocks to the same physical blocks, prompt sharing for parallel sampling and beam search becomes cheap. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When branches diverge, you only allocate new blocks for new tokens. If a shared block ever needs to change, copy-on-write lets you allocate a new block, copy what you need, and update a single table entry rather than duplicating an entire prefix cache.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Attention kernels must support indirect addressing: they look up the block table and gather scattered K and V memory into the matrices used by the attention computation. That needs optimized CUDA kernels to keep memory access efficient despite a non-contiguous layout. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The block table itself must be compact and fast to query, because the scheduler calls it every step. The memory manager must track free blocks at a very high speed to avoid becoming the scheduling bottleneck.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Continuous batching raises the demand for fast, flexible memory<\/a> because active sequences join and leave constantly. PagedAttention supplies that flexibility by making allocation and deallocation tiny and local operations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n With PagedAttention, the serving layer can pack many more sequences into the same GPU memory, which increases the effective batch sizes that continuous batching can form. Larger effective batch sizes raise GPU throughput while step-level scheduling keeps latency low for individual requests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Block size matters<\/a>. Smaller blocks cut internal waste and let you pack odd-sized caches tightly, but small blocks increase block table size and create more indirection in the attention kernel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Larger blocks reduce table overhead and improve locality, but waste more on the final block of each sequence. Think in terms of memory overhead and kernel throughput when you pick the size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The scheduler must balance latency and throughput. Aggressive admission keeps the GPU busy but may raise tail latency under heavy load. Conservative policies keep a predictable latency but leave GPU cycles unused. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While tuning, watch: <\/p>\n\n\n\n These answers determine: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Practical settings worth trying: <\/p>\n\n\n\n A fast memory manager that maintains a free block pool and handles allocation in microseconds. A scheduler that implements iteration-level scheduling with admission control based on free block count and compute capacity. Custom attention kernels that perform block table lookups and efficient gather operations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Telemetry that reports block usage, fragmentation metrics, GPU occupancy, and step timing so you can iterate on policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beam search benefits heavily since many beams share prefixes. With block-based sharing, the prefix is mapped once and beams reuse it. When beams diverge, you allocate only the new blocks. Parallel sampling from the same prompt becomes cheap because the prompt blocks can be shared across samples. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That reduces per-sample memory and speeds up multi-sample use cases. What patterns do you use most in production, sampling, or beam search, and at what beam count? Tuning block table sharing policies hinges on those answers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Run a controlled experiment: take a model like Llama 7B, set up two servers, one with contiguous per-sequence caching and static batching, the other with PagedAttention and continuous batching enabled. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Use a mix of short and long prompts, enable beam search for: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The difference will expose where your bottlenecks live and which scheduler or block size settings need tuning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Continuous batching in vLLM means the scheduler issues new sequence slots whenever a running sequence completes an iteration<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The scheduler no longer waits for a fixed global batch to finish; it performs iteration-level scheduling so GPU work fills gaps and latency variance between requests is absorbed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Key pieces you can configure are the scheduler capacity, per-request token reservation behavior, and the memory page or block size for KV cache. These interact: a larger scheduler capacity increases parallel decode throughput but raises per-request jitter and GPU memory pressure, while a tighter capacity reduces jitter but sacrifices throughput. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Which of these do you change first? If you want raw throughput<\/a>, increase max_num_seqs and batch wait time. If you wish to reduce latency, consider: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Smaller page blocks let vLLM allocate KV memory on demand and reduce internal fragmentation. That increases the number of concurrent sequences you can host in GPU memory. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Smaller blocks add bookkeeping and potential kernel overhead. If you are swapping a lot because GPU memory is tight, reduce the block size. If you have ample GPU memory and want fewer page misses, increase the block size. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That controls how many blocks a sequence may hold before eviction becomes necessary. Increasing it lets long-running generations stay resident; decreasing it forces earlier eviction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Swap to CPU or recompute. Swapping moves blocks to the CPU then back, and is slower on PCIe but saves compute. Recomputation discards GPU cache and reruns the forward path to rebuild KV. Use swap on systems with fast NVLink or ample PCIe bandwidth. Use recompute if compute is cheap relative to PCIe latency and if you have a few extended sequences. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the total number of blocks the system will allocate across sequences. Tighten the budget to bound GPU memory use and force eviction sooner. Loosen it to let more sequences stay resident. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Tune block size and page budget first if you see out-of-memory or frequent preemption. Adjust preemption mode next based on your PCIe and GPU compute profile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n vLLM and systems inspired by Orca selectively batch non-attention operators while treating attention differently when sequence lengths differ. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You can control the following: <\/p>\n\n\n\n If you have lots of short queries with different lengths, enable selective batching<\/a> and a fused attention kernel to avoid many small torch bmm calls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n vLLM uses iteration-level scheduling and a block manager to decide when to evict. The key controls are: <\/p>\n\n\n\n If you see a sequence repeatedly swapped out and back in, increase the page budget or raise its priority so it stays resident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n vLLM treats prompt and decode iterations<\/a> separately for correctness since batched tensors must be homogeneous. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You can tune: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Which should you pick? If prompt latency matters less than throughput, let prompts run in larger batches. If decode latency matters most, isolate decode from prefill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Interactive low-latency small responses<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do you serve chat agents or UI typed responses where millisecond latency matters?<\/p>\n\n\n\n This gives good GPU utilization with modest tail latency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do you stream long documents or run offline batch generation where throughput is king?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Apply one change at a time and watch the metrics for iteration time, page miss frequency, and end-to-end latency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Track these signals continuously: <\/p>\n\n\n\n A high eviction rate or frequent swap activity signals memory budgeting issues. Many small kernel launches indicate that selective batching or fusion is not working. If attention kernels dominate latency despite high utilization, experiment with alternative fused kernels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Question to help you tune: <\/p>\n\n\n\n What is your typical request length distribution, and how tight is your latency SLO? \u2022<\/p>\n\n\n\n GPUs are built for parallel work. Running one request at a time leaves most arithmetic units and memory bandwidth idle. Batch inference groups requests so the model weight loads and kernel launches serve many activations at once, raising throughput by an order of magnitude in many cases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The goal on the GPU is to convert wasted cycles<\/a> into sustained inference throughput while keeping latency within service-level objectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No batching means each request runs<\/a> as soon as it arrives. That is simple to implement with frameworks like FastAPI plus PyTorch, but it wastes the GPU. Each forward pass pays the full cost of moving large model weights through caches for just one activation set. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This approach suits debugging and small-scale test deployments where latency per request is the only metric that matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Static batching collects requests until the batch reaches a fixed size and then runs them together. That maximizes utilization when traffic is predictable and latency is not sensitive, such as nightly document processing. Static batching simplifies orchestration because the server always runs full batches, but it forces each request to wait for enough peers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Use static batching when you can tolerate queued latency and when a separate queueing layer manages flow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dynamic batching starts a timer when the first request arrives and collects more requests until the batch is full or the timer expires. You configure a maximum batch size and a wait window. This reduces average latency under sporadic traffic while still giving you throughput gains during bursts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Dynamic batching excels for modalities where each request takes roughly the same time, like image generation with a fixed decode cost per sample. It is also easier to add to existing model servers because you only need a batching layer that enforces the size and time rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Continuous batching operates at the token level<\/a>. For LLMs, the expensive part is predicting the next token many times. Continuous batching walks model layers across a rotating set of in-flight sequences so you reuse weight loads across heterogeneous sequence lengths. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The server performs a prefill pass for the initial context, then runs next token prediction across many requests in an interleaved way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Implementations include vLLM continuous batching, vLLM server features, TGI, and TensorRT LLM using in-flight batching to achieve similar gains. This approach keeps the GPU busy when responses vary widely in length because slots free up and new requests slot in without waiting for the longest response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Which models are you serving and what traffic pattern do you expect? If you run autoregressive LLMs with variable generation lengths and you target low latency and high throughput, prioritize continuous batching and a vLLM capable server. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Pick a sensible maximum batch size and plan for sequence shape variance. If your workload is images or other models with consistent per request cost, use dynamic batching with a tuned window and batch size. For offline bulk jobs where latency is irrelevant, static batching remains the simplest high throughput choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Answering these will let you pick batch size, window, and the operational approach that best uses GPU bandwidth, minimizes tail latency, and fits your engineering constraints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inference gives you OpenAI-compatible serverless inference APIs for leading open source LLM models. You call familiar endpoints and get predictable request semantics while the platform handles autoscaling, cold start reduction, and warm start behavior. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The API supports streaming tokens, batched requests, and async job submission, so you can pick low-latency paths or high-throughput pipelines as your product requires. Want to test it quickly? Start building with $10 in free API credits and map your existing OpenAI calls to these endpoints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n vLLM continuous batching uses a continuous batching scheduler to coalesce incoming prompts into efficient GPU-ready batches. Instead of waiting for a fixed timer or a fixed count, the scheduler forms a rolling batch that grows as new requests arrive, then streams tokens back as they generate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This reduces idle GPU time and smooths out bursty traffic by enabling micro-batching, request coalescing, and adaptive batch sizing. How you set the batching window and the priority rules will determine your latency SLA and tail latency behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dynamic batching adapts batch size at runtime based on queue depth, token length distribution, and latency SLOs. The scheduler may use heuristics like size-aware packing, token budget per batch, or priority lanes for small latency-sensitive requests. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Implementing batch scheduling with preemption and priority queues keeps short requests from getting stuck behind long ones. What metrics should you monitor to tune those knobs effectively?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maximizing throughput means squeezing more useful work out of GPU cycles. Use mixed precision and int8 quantization to cut memory pressure and increase batch capacity. Combine tensor parallelism and pipeline parallelism to shard large models across multiple devices and reduce peak memory. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Offload embeddings or non-critical tensors to host memory when you need extra headroom. Employ CUDA graph captures and kernel fusion to reduce launch overhead and improve steady state throughput.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Token streaming reduces perceived latency by delivering partial outputs as they arrive. Micro-batching groups small requests into tiny batches to preserve low latency while still gaining some packing efficiency. But larger micro batches increase throughput at the expense of tail latency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Use hybrid strategies: give high priority to streaming small requests while routing bulk jobs to an async batch pipeline that accepts higher latency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For large async workloads, design a separate batch processing tier. Queue jobs, shard documents into chunks, and group similar tasks into large, efficient batches during off-peak windows. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Include retry logic, checkpointing for long-running jobs, and parallel chunk embedding generation so indexing and ingestion keep pace with demand. How you partition and schedule those jobs drives cost per query and end-user latency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Document extraction for retrieval augmented generation requires chunking, OCR, or parsing, and embedding generation. Batch document preprocessing to produce consistent chunk sizes and use vector indexing for fast nearest neighbor retrieval. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When you couple document extraction with vLLM continuous batching, you can stream chunk embeddings, reduce duplicate encoding via caching, and keep RAG latency predictable by batching retrievals separately from generation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You will trade throughput for latency and cost. Use quantized models for bulk inference, reserve full precision or larger models for high-value queries, and route requests by priority to the appropriate model class. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
To reach those goals, Inference’s AI inference APIs let you try continuous batching with managed model serving, power applications like a text-to-speech tool<\/a>, simplify request consolidation, and measure real improvements in latency, throughput, and cost without heavy engineering.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat is vLLM Continuous Batching, and What are Its Benefits?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n
Implementing Dynamic Batching for Latency and Throughput Optimization<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
What Is The KV Cache Bottleneck, And Why Does It Choke Serving<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The cost of that cache scales with: <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
KV Cache Characteristics That Break Naive Serving Designs<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why Traditional Contiguous Allocation Causes Fragmentation And Stalls<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
How vLLM Continuous Batching Works Step By Step<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Fine-Grained Scheduling for Resource Optimization<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
How Pagedattention Rethinks The KV Cache As Virtual Memory<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Efficient Memory Management for Attention Mechanisms<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
How PagedAttention Kills Fragmentation And Enables Cheap Sharing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What The Attention Kernels And Block Table Routing Require<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
How Continuous Batching and PagedAttention Amplify Each Other<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What To Trade Off When You Pick Block Size And Scheduler Policies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Balancing Latency and Throughput in Scheduler Design<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
Operational Questions To Ask When You Deploy Vllm Continuous Batching<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Implementation Pieces You Must Build Or Tune<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
How Does This Affect Advanced Decoding Modes Like Beam Search And Many Samples?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Want To Test Performance Quickly?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Related Reading<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
What is a vLLM Continuous Batching Configuration?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nConfiguring Scheduler Parameters for Performance Tuning<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Scheduler Knobs You Typically Tune And How They Affect Throughput And Latency<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
KV Cache And Pagedattention Knobs You Can Change And Why They Matter<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Block Size For KV Cache<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Max Blocks Per Sequence Or Model<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Preemption Mode<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Global Page Budget<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Selective Batching And Attention Fusion Options To Improve Kernel Efficiency<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Preemption, Swapping, And Eviction Policy Settings Explained With Tradeoffs<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Prompt Handling And Mixing Prefill With Decode: What To Configure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Guidelines For Choosing Settings By Workload Pattern<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Short Queries With Bursty Arrivals And Mixed Lengths<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Long Generations And Throughput-Oriented Workloads<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Practical Tuning Checklist You Can Apply Right Now<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
What To Watch In Telemetry And Logs While Tuning<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Tuning Strategies Based on Request Profiles and Latency SLOs<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Answering that clarifies whether you should favor higher concurrency and swapping, or lower concurrency and strict latency isolation.<\/p>\n\n\n\nRelated Reading<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Continuous vs Dynamic Batching for AI Inference<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nWhy Batch Inference Matters For GPU Throughput<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
No Batching: The Naive Baseline<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Static Batching: Wait Until A Batch Is Full<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Dynamic Batching: Timer Plus Max Batch For Production<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Continuous Batching: Token-Level Scheduling And VLLM-Style Servers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Benchmarking and Comparing Continuous Batching Implementations<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
How These Methods Differ In Practice<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Trade Offs And Key Configuration Knobs<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Practical Guidance And Decision Points<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Questions To Help Next Steps<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Related Reading<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Start Building with $10 in Free API Credits Today!<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nvLLM Continuous Batching Explained and Why It Changes Throughput<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Dynamic Batching Tactics and Batch Scheduling Mechanics<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
GPU Utilization, Memory Management, and Model Parallelism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Token Streaming, Micro Batching, and Latency Tradeoffs<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Specialized Batch Processing for Large-Scale Async AI Workloads<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Document Extraction and RAG Workflows That Scale<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cost Efficiency, Performance Balancing, and the $10 Trial<\/h3>\n\n\n\n