You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
"""Hash value of a block (int), the token IDs in the block, and extra keys.
I think this still has the potential for hash collisions. Using token IDs merely reduces the likelihood of such collisions. For example, in two sequences, if their previous block hashes are the same and the current block token IDs are also identical, a collision can still occur, albeit with a low probability.
Before submitting a new issue...
Make sure you already searched for relevant issues, and asked the chatbot living at the bottom right corner of the documentation page, which can answer lots of frequently asked questions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes the probability is not zero but this should (very) rarely happen, so don't have plan on it now. You're welcome to propose RFCs and I'll be happy to review.
Yes the probability is not zero but this should (very) rarely happen, so don't have plan on it now. You're welcome to propose RFCs and I'll be happy to review.
I don’t have a very good idea at the moment. For now, we can simply add some explanations and clarifications. #11847
Anything you want to discuss about vllm.
vllm/vllm/v1/core/kv_cache_utils.py
Line 13 in 4d29e91
I think this still has the potential for hash collisions. Using token IDs merely reduces the likelihood of such collisions. For example, in two sequences, if their previous block hashes are the same and the current block token IDs are also identical, a collision can still occur, albeit with a low probability.
Before submitting a new issue...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: