PreprintCited by 20Parallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesNatural Language Processing TechniquesTopic Modeling

SARATHI: Efficient LLM Inference by Piggybacking Decodes with Chunked Prefills

Open access
Agrawal, Amey, Panwar, Ashish, Mohan, Jayashree, Kwatra, Nipun, Gulavani, Bhargav S., Ramjee, Ramachandran·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Large Language Model (LLM) inference consists of two distinct phases - prefill phase which processes the input prompt and decode phase which generates output tokens autoregressively. While the prefill phase effectively saturates GPU compute at small batch sizes, the decode phase results in low compute utilization as it generates one token at a time per request. The varying prefill and decode times also lead to imbalance across micro-batches when using pipeline parallelism, resulting in further inefficiency due to bubbles. We present SARATHI to address these challenges. SARATHI employs chunked-prefills, which splits a prefill request into equal sized chunks, and decode-maximal batching, which constructs a batch using a single prefill chunk and populates the remaining slots with decodes. During inference, the prefill chunk saturates GPU compute, while the decode requests 'piggyback' and cost up to an order of magnitude less compared to a decode-only batch. Chunked-prefills allows constructing multiple decode-maximal batches from a single prefill request, maximizing coverage of decodes that can piggyback. Furthermore, the uniform compute design of these batches ameliorates the imbalance between micro-batches, significantly reducing pipeline bubbles. Our techniques yield significant improvements in inference performance across models and hardware. For the LLaMA-13B model on A6000 GPU, SARATHI improves decode throughput by up to 10x, and accelerates end-to-end throughput by up to 1.33x. For LLaMa-33B on A100 GPU, we achieve 1.25x higher end-to-end-throughput and up to 4.25x higher decode throughput. When used with pipeline parallelism on GPT-3, SARATHI reduces bubbles by 6.29x, resulting in an end-to-end throughput improvement of 1.91x.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2308.16369

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GPUs run at full capacity with Preble's and existing serving policies, so eviction cost is expected to always occur.

    “Given that GPUs run at full capacity with our and existing serving policies Agrawal et al. (2023), we expect this cost to always occur.”

    From Preble: Efficient Distributed Prompt Scheduling for LLM Serving (2024) · cites this paper as Agrawal et al. (2023)

    Section 3.3 (page unavailable) says existing prefill-and-decode patterns result in poor overall GPU utilization, contrary to the claim that GPUs run at full capacity. Section 4.1 (page unavailable) likewise describes bursty resource utilization under existing scheduling. Neither passage establishes that eviction costs always occur. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reducing prompt size reduces runtime cost for downstream tasks, decreases latency, and improves the overall efficiency of LLM-serving systems.

    “This reduction in prompt size has a significant impact—not only reducing runtime cost for downstream tasks (as all API-providers meter the input tokens), but also decreasing latency and improving the overall efficiency of LLM-serving systems (Kwon et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2024; Agrawal et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2025).”

    From GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learning (2025) · cites this paper as Agrawal et al., 2023

    The Introduction says the prefill phase processes input-prompt tokens, and §3.2 says varying numbers of prefill tokens cause pipeline bubbles that reduce serving throughput. This supports a connection between prompt length and serving efficiency, but the paper does not establish that shortening prompts reduces API charges or show a general latency reduction from doing so. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There are very few formal models for scheduling in LLM inference.

    “While many studies have focused on improving LLM inference efficiency via engineering [Agrawal et al., 2023, Kwon et al., 2023, Patel et al., 2023, Pope et al., 2023, Sheng et al., 2023, Yu et al., 2022, Zhong et al., 2024], there are very few formal models in this space.”

    From Online Scheduling for LLM Inference with KV Cache Constraints (2025) · cites this paper as Agrawal et al., 2023

  • Sarathi introduced chunked prefill, which allocates a budget to the prompt phase, but it does not optimize the transmission of prefill requests by chunking the volume.

    “Sarathi [1] introduced chunked prefill, which allocates a budget to the prompt phase. However, it does not optimize the the transmission of prefill requests by chunking the volume.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Sanjith Athlur, Nitika Saran, Muthian Sivathanu, Ra- machandran Ramjee, and Nipun Kwatra. Varuna: scal- able, low-cost training of massive deep learning models. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth European Conference on Computer Systems, pages 472-487, 2022.
  2. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learn- ers. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901, 2020.
  3. Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob De- vlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Se- bastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prab- hakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury, Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fe- dus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeon- taek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sep- assi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pil- lai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Re- won Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zong- wei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Saeta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier- Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. CoRR, abs/2204.02311, 2022. · arXiv
  4. Daniel Crankshaw, Xin Wang, Guilio Zhou, Michael J Franklin, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Clipper: A {Low-Latency} online prediction serving system. In 14th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 17), pages 613-627, 2017.
  5. Yanping Huang, Youlong Cheng, Ankur Bapna, Orhan Firat, Dehao Chen, Mia Chen, HyoukJoong Lee, Jiquan Ngiam, Quoc V Le, Yonghui Wu, et al. Gpipe: Effi- cient training of giant neural networks using pipeline parallelism. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  6. Jiamin Li, Yimin Jiang, Yibo Zhu, Cong Wang, and Hong Xu. Accelerating distributed MoE training and inference with lina. In 2023 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 23), pages 945-959, Boston, MA, July 2023. USENIX Association.
  7. Deepak Narayanan, Aaron Harlap, Amar Phanishayee, Vivek Seshadri, Nikhil R Devanur, Gregory R Ganger, Phillip B Gibbons, and Matei Zaharia. Pipedream: gen- eralized pipeline parallelism for dnn training. In Pro- ceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 1-15, 2019.
  8. OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report. CoRR, abs/2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
  9. Mohammad Shoeybi, Mostofa Patwary, Raul Puri, Patrick LeGresley, Jared Casper, and Bryan Catanzaro. Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using gpu model parallelism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053, 2019. · arXiv
  10. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Bar- ret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed H. Chi, Tat- sunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus. Emergent abilities of large language models. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2022, 2022.
  11. Gyeong-In Yu, Joo Seong Jeong, Geon-Woo Kim, Soo- jeong Kim, and Byung-Gon Chun. Orca: A distributed serving system for Transformer-Based generative mod- els. In 16th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 22), pages 521-538, Carlsbad, CA, July 2022. USENIX Association.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agrawal, A., Panwar, A., Mohan, J., Kwatra, N., Gulavani, B. S., & Ramjee, R.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Microsoft Research (India) (IN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386395487
Cited by
20
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
large language model inference, pipeline parallelism, pipeline bubbles, inference throughput, autoregressive decoding

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review