Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2609.37626

SPLASH: Switching Parallel Layouts of Attention with Seamless Handoff for LLM Serving

Abstract

No single way of parallelizing attention serves large language models well under all loads. Low concurrency favors tensor parallelism, many independent requests favor data-parallel attention, and long prompts favor context parallelism. Reasoning, agentic, and RL-rollout workloads make a fixed choice untenable: a batch that begins as many short requests ends as a few very long ones, so the best layout changes while the same requests run. Serving engines nevertheless fix one layout at launch, because changing it has meant draining requests and restarting workers. We present SPLASH, a serving system that switches the parallel layout of attention while requests are running. It builds on one observation: modern attention, with few or no KV heads, decouples where a request's KV cache lives from how attention weights are sharded. This has two consequences. First, layouts differ only in who owns the weights and the cache, and most of that state already sits where the next layout needs it; SPLASH reuses it, moves the rest in the background of ongoing inference, and hands off at a batch boundary, making a switch nearly free: its median overhead is under 0.51% of the step it runs in. Second, the decoupling exposes a layout that existing engines lack: Decoupled Ownership Parallelism (DOP) shards attention weights as tensor parallelism does while keeping each request's cache on a single owner as data-parallel attention does. DOP replicates neither, offers 27-60% more KV capacity than data-parallel attention, and gives the scheduler a choice when KV memory limits admission. A transition-aware scheduler follows the best of the four layouts as load changes. On B200 GPUs serving GLM-5.3, SPLASH improves end-to-end serving throughput by 1.3-1.73x over fixed-layout deployments, and the same layout regimes appear with DeepSeek-V3.2 on H200 and GLM-5.3-Flash on DCU.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chuan Liu, Shuoming Zhang, Zhicheng Li, Qianqi Sun, Ruiyuan Xu, Qiuchu Yu, Xiyu Shi, Huimin Cui, Jiacheng Zhao. 2026-09-29. SPLASH: Switching Parallel Layouts of Attention with Seamless Handoff for LLM Serving. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37626

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Recolorable Graph Exploration by an Oblivious Agent with Fewer Colors

Recently, Böckenhauer, Frei, Unger, and Wehner (SIROCCO 2023) introduced a novel variant of the graph exploration problem in which a single memoryless agent must visit all nodes of an unknown, undirected, and connected graph before returning to its starting node. Unlike the standard model for mobile agents, edges are not labeled with port numbers. Instead, the agent can color its current node and observe the color of each neighboring node. To move, it specifies a target color and then moves to an adversarially chosen neighbor of that color. Böckenhauer~et al.~analyzed the minimum number of colors required for successful exploration and proposed an elegant algorithm that enables the agent to explore an arbitrary graph using only eight colors. In this paper, we present a novel graph exploration algorithm that requires only six colors. Furthermore, we prove that five colors are sufficient if we consider only a restricted class of graphs, which we call the $φ$-free graphs, a class that includes every graph with maximum degree at most three and every cactus.

cs.DC↗

Scepsy: Serving Agentic Workflows Using Aggregate LLM Pipelines

Agentic workflows carry out complex tasks by orchestrating multiple large language models (LLMs) and tools. Serving them at a target throughput with low latency is hard because they are written in arbitrary agentic frameworks and their execution times are unpredictable: execution branches, fans out, or recurs in data-dependent ways. Since their LLMs often outnumber the available GPUs, they also oversubscribe GPUs. We describe Scepsy, a serving system that schedules arbitrary multi-LLM agentic workflows onto a GPU cluster. Scepsy exploits the insight that, while the end-to-end latency of an agentic workflow is unpredictable, each LLM's fraction of execution time is comparatively stable across requests. Scepsy profiles each LLM under different parallelism degrees and combines the profiles with these fractions into an Aggregate LLM Pipeline, a lightweight throughput and latency predictor for allocations. To minimize latency at a target throughput, Scepsy uses the Aggregate LLM Pipeline to search over fractional GPU shares, tensor parallelism degrees, and replica counts. A hierarchical heuristic then places the chosen allocation onto the cluster, minimizing fragmentation and respecting network topology. On realistic agentic workflows, Scepsy achieves up to 2.5x higher throughput before saturation and 1.0-3.3x lower latency than systems that optimize LLMs independently or rely on user-specified allocations.

cs.DC↗

The World's Fastest Matching Engine Algorithm

We drove 247 matching engines through one C ABI harness on one identical workload: every open-source FIFO implementation we could find, deduplicated, and our own, on the same gate. The workload doubles as a byte-identical correctness oracle, 1,000,000,000+ order messages per engine, replayed against an independent-engine consensus. Only 47 are correct as shipped; we filed 181 GitHub issues upstream, 28 already fixed by their maintainers, none declined. Our engine leads the 160 that reproduce the consensus by ~95 M/s (12.6x the second best) on worst-case throughput. One core sustains 103.4 million order messages per second (122.09 million on AMD EPYC processors) worst-case, and in the engine's production configuration its wire pipeline keeps single-book P99 host-path latency, OUCH parsing and OUCH/ITCH encoding included, under a microsecond through 82 M msgs/s; a 96-core server (~$1,630/month, 3-year reserved) reaches ~1.3 billion/s across over 10,000 symbols, for scale, over 45x the CTA consolidated quote feed's provisioned capacity. The lead is structural: the 73 engines written inside the trading industry sit under the same 8.19 M/s ceiling as the rest of the field, and it is one of them that sets it.

cs.DC↗