Phase-Decoupled, Model-Calibrated Power Control for Disaggregated LLM Serving
Authors: Jae Gon Kim, Donghoon Yoo, Hanyul Ryu, Sungho Ha, Juyeon Lee, Soojung Ryu
Abstract
Datacenter GPU power is the binding constraint on LLM serving capacity, and production serving has shifted to prefill/decode (PD) disaggregation. Deploying NVIDIA's Max-Q inference profile on a disaggregated B200 system, we found its realized gain modest (+8.6% tokens/J), model-dependent, and carrying a mean end-to-end latency cost (+5.2%) that throughput-only evaluation does not surface; the profile also applies one setting to prefill and decode GPUs that operate in opposite hardware regimes. We hypothesize that the optimal power setting is a property of the deployed (model, quantization, engine, hardware) combination rather than of the GPU class, that each lane warrants its own profile, and that converting SLO headroom into energy safely requires latency-gated calibration under a runtime SLO guard rather than a fixed recipe. We present a phase-decoupled, model-calibrated controller: the prefill lane runs under an SM-clock window whose floor is a latency guarantee by construction, and the decode lane under a power cap placed by automatic calibration just above a measured throughput/latency cliff. Because a disaggregated decode lane draws flat, memory-bound power, the cap binds continuously, the reactive-overshoot weakness that led POLCA to reject capping is absent, and the GPU's own power manager retains throughput under the cap. On an 8x B200 node serving Qwen3-Coder-480B (FP8) under agentic load, our balanced mode delivers +20.4% tokens/J at +3.5% mean e2e versus +8.6% at +5.2% for Max-Q, a Pareto improvement on both axes. On Qwen3-235B-A22B (NVFP4) every operating mode meets the ITL-p99 SLO in every repetition; both vendor profiles miss it. A decode-actuator A/B shows the calibrated cap beats static clock locks, and a three-day sustained run saves 32.3% of a lane pair's electricity. Both models are MoE; a dense model recovers roughly 5x less, so we scope our claims to MoE serving.
Power capping is the standard GPU energy lever in LLM serving, and it appears to work: throughput drops, power readings fall, and energy budgets are met. We show the appearance is illusory for the phase that dominates production serving: autoregressive decode. Across four attention paradigms -- GQA, MLA, Gated DeltaNet, and Mamba2 -- on NVIDIA H200, decode draws only 137--300,W on a 700,W GPU; no cap ever triggers, because memory-bound decode saturates HBM bandwidth rather than compute and leaves power headroom untouched. Firmware-initiated clock throttling compounds the illusion: these deviations can corrupt any throughput measurement that attributes them to the cap. SM clock locking dissolves both confounds. By targeting the lever that is actually on the critical path, clock locking Pareto-dominates power capping universally, recovering up to 32% of decode energy at minimal throughput loss. We identify three architecture-dependent DVFS behavioural classes and characterise a common energy pattern across novel attention replacements: a heavy prefill cost recouped by efficient decode, eventually halving total request energy relative to GQA at production batch sizes.
Large language model (LLM) inference has become a dominant workload in modern data centers, driving significant GPU utilization and energy consumption. While prior systems optimize throughput and latency by batching, scheduling, and parallelism, they largely treat GPU power as a static constraint rather than a controllable resource. In this paper, we present a power-aware runtime for LLM serving, PALS, that treats GPU power caps as a first-class control knob and jointly optimizes them with software parameters such as batch size. The system combines lightweight offline power-performance models with a feedback-driven controller to select configurations that satisfy throughput targets while maximizing energy efficiency. We implement PALS within an existing LLM serving framework, vLLM, demonstrating that it requires no model retraining or API changes. Across multi-GPU systems and both dense and mixture-of-experts (MoE) models, PALS improves energy efficiency by up to 26.3%, reduces QoS violations by 4x to 7x under power constraints, and tracks dynamic power budgets. These results highlight the potential of integrating power control directly into LLM inference runtimes, enabling energy-proportional and grid-interactive AI systems.
Reinforcement-learning post-training dominates modern language-model development, yet its power behavior on GPU hardware has not been characterized, and datacenters manage GPU power with workload-blind mechanisms, static caps and reactive throttling, that slow hardware indiscriminately. We instrument GRPO training with half-second power telemetry at 7B, 14B, and 72B scales on one to four A100s (380,000+ samples), and train a PPO meta-controller that adapts the workload's own generation parameters to measured power. Against the full 500-step 7B trace, the controller cuts power-limit violations by 89.8% while increasing token output by 18.1% and energy efficiency by 26.2% (tokens per MWh). Deployed live at 72B, the same controller family yields replicated null results, diagnosed as the group-size actuator losing authority under model sharding. An actuator-authority sweep shows the same parameters applied as generation concurrency retain 17-22% power authority, isolating an occupancy-versus-volume principle; a controller rebuilt on that actuator controls a live 72B rollout-generation workload across three replications: 35.7% more output than a static safe baseline at 2.27 +/- 1.08% budget violations, 87.2% fewer violations than uncontrolled operation, and the best mean throughput and energy per token among constrained controllers, with an adaptive threshold rule matching it in one of three operating conditions. Under realistic measurement windows the original 72B transients fall from 23.6% at half-second resolution to 1.6% at 30 s and zero at 5 min; a composed 16-GPU fleet shows zero violations at 30 s and longer, with peak demand at 50-56% of nameplate. For this fleet mix, roughly twofold oversubscription of nameplate appears feasible, subject to operator validation. We quantify the economic and carbon consequences and specify a low-cost operator pilot.