A Tabular Schedule Abstraction for Communication-Aware Evaluation of Pipeline-Parallel LLM Training

Pipeline parallelism is widely used to train large language models (LLMs). However, increasing heterogeneity in model architectures exacerbates pipeline bubbles, thereby reducing training efficiency. Prior approaches typically optimize a single phase of the pipeline schedule (i.e., partitioning, placement, or scheduling), leaving substantial pipeline bubbles. While promising, co-optimization poses three key challenges: (1) complex performance modeling, (2) a combinatorial search space, and (3) irregular execution orders. To address these challenges, we propose OctoPipe, a pipeline parallelism system to jointly optimize partitioning, placement, and scheduling. First, we build a graph-based pipeline simulator to model heterogeneous pipeline execution for co-optimization. Second, on top of the simulator, we develop an iterative bubble-aware tuner to efficiently explore the combinatorial search space. Third, we implement a unified pipeline executor that dynamically orchestrates computation and communication to support irregular execution orders without deadlocks while maximizing communication-computation overlap. Experiments show that OctoPipe achieves 1.09--1.49$\times$ throughput improvement over the state-of-the-art pipeline parallelism approaches across various heterogeneous model configurations and GPU cluster scales.

Pipeline parallelism is a key technique for scaling large-model training, but modern workloads exhibit runtime variability in computation and communication. Existing pipeline systems typically consume static, profiled, or adaptively generated schedules as pre-committed execution orders. When realized task readiness diverges from the pre-committed order, stages may wait for not-yet-ready work even though other executable work is available, creating stage misalignment, idle bubbles, and reduced utilization. We present Runtime-Readiness-First Pipeline (RRFP), a readiness-driven runtime for pipeline-parallel training. RRFP changes how schedules are consumed at runtime: instead of treating a schedule as a sequence that stages must wait to follow, it treats the schedule as a non-binding hint order for ranking currently ready work. To support this model, RRFP combines message-driven asynchronous communication, lightweight tensor-parallel coordination for collective consistency, and ready-set arbitration for low-overhead dispatch. We implement RRFP in a Megatron-based training framework and evaluate it on language-only and multimodal workloads at up to 128 GPUs. RRFP improves over fixed-order pipeline baselines across all settings. Using the BFW hint, RRFP achieves up to 1.77$\times$ speedup on language-only workloads and up to 2.77$\times$ on multimodal workloads. In cross-framework comparisons, RRFP with the default BF hint outperforms the faster available external system by up to 1.84$\times$ while preserving training correctness.

Training modern machine learning models increasingly requires computation to be distributed across many accelerators. Data parallelism remains the default choice and is often paired with tensor-parallel sharding, but model parallelism becomes unavoidable once parameters, activations, or optimizer states no longer fit on a single device. This paper studies pipeline model parallelism through the lens of PipeDream (PD) (Harlap et al., 2018). Our first contribution is theoretical: we introduce Randomized PipeDream (RPD), a stale block-SGD abstraction that yields, to our knowledge, the first clean nonconvex convergence guarantee for a PD-style method. Our second contribution is a scaling diagnosis: we prove that the delay induced by steady-state PD grows as $S^2 - S/2 + O(1)$ for $S$ stages, so the stale-read contribution in the convergence theorem scales as $Θ(γ^2 S^4)$, equivalently as $Θ(S^4/K)$ in the tuned-rate form. Our third contribution is a comparison with LocalSGD, whose periodic model averaging trades weight staleness for synchronization bubbles. In our reported simulated-time experiments, the better-performing method depends on the objective: PD performs better on the quadratic objective and on a small language-modeling training-loss task, while for logistic regression LocalSGD becomes superior as the number of stages increases.