This reverts commit 8966a99710.
It breaks the test
`tests/e2e/singlecard/spec_decode/test_mtp_eagle_correctness.py::test_deepseek_mtp_correctness[True-FULL_DECODE_ONLY-2-wemaster/deepseek_mtp_main_random_bf16]`
- vLLM version: v0.14.0
- vLLM main:
d68209402d
### What this PR does / why we need it?
**Refactor: Unify full-graph parameter update logic**
This PR consolidates the scattered full-graph parameter update logic
into a unified approach, improving code architecture and eliminating
duplication.
**Key improvements:**
1. **Unified interface**
- Create `update_full_graph_params` as the single entry point for all
full-graph updates
- Replace multiple scattered update calls with one unified function
- Remove ~50 lines of duplicated if-else logic across
`model_runner_v1.py` and `eagle_proposer.py`
2. **Better architecture**
- Move update logic to respective Backend classes
(`AscendAttentionBackend`, `AscendMLABackend`)
- Each Backend manages its own parameter update logic internally
- Simplify caller code to just dispatch to the appropriate Backend
3. **Cleaner parameter handling**
- Remove unnecessary `pcp_size` and `dcp_size` parameter passing
- Get parallel configuration directly from distributed groups
- Consistent with how other parts of the codebase obtain these values
**Why we need it:**
- **Maintainability**: Future changes only need to be made in one place
per Backend
- **Code quality**: Follows DRY principle and Single Responsibility
Principle
- **Readability**: Cleaner, more intuitive code structure
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
**No.** This is a pure refactoring with no functional changes - same
behavior, cleaner code.
### How was this patch tested?
- All existing unit tests pass with updated mocks
- No new tests needed (pure refactoring, no behavior changes)
- CI validates correctness
---
- vLLM version: v0.13.0
Signed-off-by: lico67373 <918688502@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: drslark <slarksblood@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: weijinqian0 <1184188277@qq.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it?
PCP/DCP splits the kv-cache onto different cards. After introducing the
parameter cp-kv-cache-interleave-size, the first size tokens will be
cached at Card 0, and so on.
However, if there are too few tokens, some cards will not store the
key-value pairs, resulting in values of 0, corrupted values, and
precision issues. Currently, additional operations are introduced to
avoid this precision problem.
After we integrate FIA operator in mla_cp._forward_decode and CANN
updates to 8.5.0, we now can remove these additional operations.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
### How was this patch tested?
passed all CI by CANN 8.5.0
- vLLM version: v0.13.0
- vLLM main:
2c24bc6996
Signed-off-by: dsxsteven <dsxsteven@sina.com>
Signed-off-by: dsxsteven <36877507+dsxsteven@users.noreply.github.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it?
Drop vLLM 0.13.0 support, upgrade to 0.14.0
- vLLM version: v0.13.0
- vLLM main:
d68209402d
---------
Signed-off-by: hfadzxy <starmoon_zhang@163.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it?
Replace the npu_multi_head_latent_attention with FIA operator in
mla_cp.py _forward_decode.
Adjust mla_attn_dpc_pcp in acl_graph.py
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
no
### How was this patch tested?
- vLLM version: v0.13.0
- vLLM main:
2f4e6548ef
---------
Signed-off-by: 白永斌 <baiyongbin3@h-partners.com>
Signed-off-by: Bai Yongbin <845473182@qq.com>
Signed-off-by: tongyuzhou <t00886357@china.huawei.com>
Co-authored-by: 白永斌 <baiyongbin3@h-partners.com>
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: tongyuzhou <t00886357@china.huawei.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it?
In the chunked prefill scenario, CP needs to align the
`max_context_chunk` to the `cp_virtual_block_size`, but the current
implementation only aligns it to the `block_size`. For
PD-disaggregation, `cp_kv_cache_interleave_size` is typically set equal
to `block_size`, in which case `cp_virtual_block_size=block_size *
dcp_size * pcp_size`. Under specific conditions, this can lead to
misalignment of certain chunks, subsequently triggering assertion check
errors.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
No
- vLLM version: v0.13.0
- vLLM main:
2f4e6548ef
Signed-off-by: QiuChunshuo <qiuchunshuo@huawei.com>
### What this PR does / why we need it?
mlapo in deepseek is a huge performance improvement in decode, this pr
support pcp & dcp with mlapo
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
NO
### How was this patch tested?
- vLLM version: v0.13.0
- vLLM main:
2f4e6548ef
---------
Signed-off-by: zhenwenqi2024 <zhenwenqi_2022@qq.com>
## What this PR does / why we need it?
This PR fixes the `AttentionMaskBuilder` singleton initialization issue
introduced in PR #4779 and removes the unused `pcp_prefill_mask` field.
### Background
After PR #4779 made `AttentionMaskBuilder` a singleton with `@singleton`
decorator, the class constructor now requires a `device` parameter.
However, two initialization sites were still using the old parameterless
constructor, causing failures.
### Changes
1. **Fix singleton initialization**
- Fixed `AttentionMaskBuilder()` → `AttentionMaskBuilder(self.device)`
in `AscendMLAMetadataBuilder.__init__()`
- Fixed `AttentionMaskBuilder()` → `AttentionMaskBuilder(self.device)`
in `AscendAttentionMetadataBuilder.__init__()`
2. **Remove unused field**
- Removed `pcp_prefill_mask` field from
`AscendPrefillContextParallelMetadata` (never used in codebase)
- Updated related test assertions
### Related
- Issue #5463
- PR #4779 (Unify all mask generation methods)
- PR #5389 (Make AttentionMaskBuilder singleton)
## Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
No. This is an internal refactoring.
## How was this patch tested?
- ✅ Local testing: No linter errors
- ✅ Unit tests for attention modules verified
- ⏳ CI pipeline
Signed-off-by: lico67373 <918688502@qq.com>
Co-authored-by: weijinqian0 <1184188277@qq.com>
