The Illusion of Power Capping in LLM Decode: A Phase-Aware Energy Characterisation Across Attention Architectures
Bole Ma, Ayesha Afzal, Jan Eitzinger, Gerhard Wellein
AI 速览：作者报告在NVIDIA H200上，功耗封顶对以HBM等待为主的LLM自回归解码阶段几乎无效，而锁定SM时钟可在几乎不损失吞吐的情况下回收最高32%的解码能耗。
Power capping is a common GPU energy lever in LLM serving, and it appears to work: the cap is set, the GPU reports drawing less than it, and the energy budget is met. We show the cap does little for the phase that dominates LLM serving: autoregressive decode. Across four attention paradigms (GQA, MLA, Gated DeltaNet, and Mamba2) on an NVIDIA H200 under vLLM eager execution, decode kernels wait on HBM and the GPU idles between kernel launches, so decode draws less than half of the GPU's 700W rating and throughput stays within a few percent under every cap we set. The cap engages only when a large batch runs a long generation. Locking the SM clock instead lowers power without slowing memory-bound decode and recovers up to 32% of decode energy at minimal throughput loss. We identify three architecture-dependent frequency-scaling classes and find that, once prefill is measured without prefix caching, the recurrent architectures pay no prefill penalty: their linear-time mixing undercuts quadratic attention on long prompts, so their efficient decode adds to the prefill saving and lowers total request energy from the first output token at large batch.
Only Accepted Tokens Count: An Energy Accounting of Speculative Decoding Under Latency Targets
Bole Ma, Ayesha Afzal, Jan Eitzinger, Harald Koestler, Gerhard Wellein
AI 速览：在生产级服务条件下测量投机解码的能耗，发现其节能取决于被接受 token 的比例，且随批大小增大而缩小，甚至可能变为耗能。
Large language model serving is limited by facility power. Energy per token determines how many tokens a datacenter can serve, while a latency target bounds how quickly each user receives them. During decode, every weight is read from memory for every generated token. Batching amortizes this read across users but makes no individual user faster. Speculative decoding does: a drafter proposes several future tokens, and the target model verifies them in a single forward pass that reuses the same weight read. Because every drafted token must be verified whether or not it is accepted, the energy speculation saves depends on how many drafted tokens are accepted. This saving is hard to pin down. It varies across target models from different attention families and across drafting schemes, and it depends on the text being served. Every drafter we evaluate accepts fewer tokens on conversation than on code, and every trained drafter accepts fewer on Romansh, a low-resource language, than on English. We measure speculative decoding under production serving conditions (SGLang, CUDA graphs enabled) on H100 and H200 GPUs, at batch sizes up to 64 across 5 corpora. On dense models, verification, not drafting, dominates the energy cost. The saving shrinks as the batch grows, because batching has already shared the weight read that speculation would divide among the accepted tokens. At large batch sizes, block drafters push verification past the balance point between arithmetic and memory traffic into the compute-bound regime, where the saving becomes a loss, and a drafter with low acceptance raises energy per token. Meeting a tighter latency target with speculation then costs additional energy. Larger batches lower energy per token without speculation. Speculation adds to that saving only when acceptance is high, and on the model we tested it leaves little headroom for latency-preserving DVFS.