### What this PR does / why we need it?
The expert mapping table and weights of the dynamic EPLB were not
updated, causing the accuracy to be correct but not effective. This bug
has now been fixed.
If it was tested in a way different from regular unit tests, please
clarify how you tested step by step, ideally copy and paste-able, so
that other reviewers can test and check, and descendants can verify in
the future.
Signed-off-by: shenchuxiaofugui <1311027364@qq.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it?
When using dynamic eplb,it will be blocking by nz tensor.We fix these
prolems by clone src tensor and recv tensor.
### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
### How was this patch tested?
Qwen3_moe in A3.
- vLLM version: v0.11.0rc3
- vLLM main: https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/commit/v0.11.0
---------
Signed-off-by: offline0806 <3337230449@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: offline0806 <3337230449@qq.com>
### Motivation
Currently dynamically experts balancing would stop-the-world.
Asynchronously expert load balancing would be better without flowing
problems:
Host-bound latency:
There are many cpu operations during EPLB such as
eplb-algorithm、creating p2p ops、and log2phy expert converting would
spend long cpu time, as ~1s.
Communication latency: The transfer time would cost much in the
situation without nvlink. As the weight of an expert maybe transfer to
multiple new positions, thus N times send/recv for one expert, with
result long latency. We had tested that batch_isend_irecv cost more
100ms for 16 experts weight transmission in A2 server of ascend.
SwiftBalancer would not stop-the-world anymore, in out test on NPU 1~2ms
cost for each layer while benefit 5ms-8ms decode latency with ep_size =
64.
The following updates have been made:
1、expert distribution recording with lower cost.
2、async cpu computing for eplb algo and other python operator.
3、new eplb algo with less expert rebalancing while almost the same
effect.
### Proposed Change
We will gradually migrate the EPLB logic to the VLLM community and
implement a generalized design. Relevant RFC:
https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/22246
The overall workflow involves:
<img width="801" height="302"
alt="474430541-23b06f58-23bc-44a3-a1be-00f268aeb15c"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1d73a459-1b23-4b0a-812a-bf0a75debfed"
/>
1. Record experts distribution during forward. We using expert_token_num
after disptach instead of topk_ids, thus we got much smaller tensor
shape to reduce cost of hbm recording and add-operator.
2. Do all-gather for experts distribution. Using all-gather instead of
all-reduce as less traffic volume.
3. Wake up eplb worker process with experts distribution when
num_iterations comes. Run eplb algorithm in eplb worker.
4. Generate p2p send/recv ops and other operator such as log2phy would
cost long cpu time.
5. Lanch ibatch_send_recv in async_stream before forward.
6. After forward, wait for the ibatch_send_recv finish, then do uapte
expert map and expert weights.
### Co-author
Co-authored-by: raindaywhu raindaywhu@raindaywhu@ 163.con
Co-authored-by: njuyuan yuanjl19@smail.nju.edu.cn
Co-authored-by: qmkakaxi wjh1594260677@qq.com
Co-authored-by: Skywalker-EP 173723846@qq.com
- vLLM version: v0.10.2
- vLLM main:
567939953b
---------
Signed-off-by: offline0806 <z00858301@china.huawei.com>
Co-authored-by: offline0806 <z00858301@china.huawei.com>
