vllm-project / vllm-project/agentic-api

Benchmark KV-affine Responses routing and token artifacts

Open
#74 0 comments 0 reactions 1 assignee View on GitHub

@franciscojavierarceo is already working on this.

Since Sep 15, 2026.

Dominant language
Rust
Stars
284
Forks
74
Avg merge
1d 17h
Merged PRs (30d)
93

Description

Parent tracker: #69
Design and initial evidence: #65

Summary

Build end-to-end benchmark coverage for both KV-affine Responses routing and later portable token-artifact execution across realistic agentic workloads.

Established baseline

In the initial two-replica GPT-OSS-20B previous_response_id benchmark, precise routing increased mean continuation cache hits from 49.54% to 99.08% and reduced mean continuation latency from 811.0 ms to 316.5 ms relative to load-only routing. Approximate and precise routing were effectively tied in the idle deterministic workload.

Scope

  • Compare load-only, approximate-prefix, and precise Responses routing while holding prompts, ordering, vLLM processes, APC configuration, and cache state controls constant.
  • Run concurrent conversations, gateway tool loops, vLLM-native tool loops, branching histories, renderer/template/tool changes, event lag, eviction pressure, restarts, and active-active EPP.
  • Separate warm correct-pod hits, wrong-pod misses, HBM hits, CPU/offload loads, shared-storage loads, and full recomputation.
  • Verify /tokenize and inference prompt-token parity for every tested renderer/model family.
  • Add server-side timings for agentic rehydration, llm-d render/index/score/queue, vLLM scheduler/prefill/decode, and persistence.
  • After portable artifacts exist, compare full logical requests with artifact execution while holding routing and KV residency constant.
  • Include GPT-OSS/Harmony plus non-Harmony Responses profiles and realistic short-, medium-, and long-context distributions.

Required output

  • TTFT, total latency, input/generated/cached token counts, cache-hit ratio, selected endpoint, matched blocks, queue/load score, fallback reason, and confidence intervals.
  • Raw machine-readable samples plus reproducible configuration, image/commit identities, and summarized graphs.
  • Separate routing benefit from request-transfer/rendering benefit.
  • Report neutral and negative results, including cases where precise and approximate routing are tied.

Acceptance criteria

  • Precise routing materially outperforms load-only routing under concurrent agent/tool traffic without changing prompt token IDs or output semantics.
  • Tests identify workloads where exact routing is more reliable than approximate pseudo-token identity, or explicitly conclude that no measurable difference was observed.
  • Wrong-pod, eviction, restart, event-lag, and tiered-storage behavior is quantified rather than hidden in one aggregate hit metric.
  • Portable artifacts preserve routing/cache-hit performance and show whether transfer/render/tokenization savings justify their operational complexity.
  • Results are suitable for direct inclusion in ADR-04 and upstream project PRs.

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Assessment

This issue has not been assessed yet.

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.