Skip to content

[Feature] Kimi K3 Roadmap #32607

Closed
Closed

Description

@Fridge003

Links

Roadmap

Kernel Optimization

  • Continue optimize performance in bs=1/64 and TP8(GB300)
  • Integrate custom KDA Prefill kernel and make it compatible with RadixCache
  • Refactor to generalize kernel supporting different parallelism.
  • Support GEMM Allreduce fusion
  • KDA MTP decode
  • BF16 gemm / gemm fusion with SiTU
  • Optimize kernels in TP16xhopper

Parallelism

Extending Unified Memory Compatibility

  • Attention backends
  • Speculative Decoding
  • PD disaggregation
  • Hi-cache

DSpark

Code Cleaning

Slack

Join [#kimi-k3] channel at https://slack.sglang.io/

Activity

  1. pinned this issue on Jul 28, 2026
  2. foraxe commented on Jul 29, 2026

    @foraxe
    Contributor
  3. foraxe commented on Jul 30, 2026

    @foraxe
  4. kpham-sgl commented on Jul 31, 2026

    @kpham-sgl
    Collaborator

    Hi @foraxe, we can keep the discussions under #29736

  5. foraxe commented on Jul 31, 2026

    @foraxe
    Contributor

    Hi @foraxe, we can keep the discussions under #29736

    Got it. Thank you.

  6. wirybeaver commented on Aug 2, 2026

    @wirybeaver
    Contributor

    BF16 MoonEP PoC handoff is ready for the Kimi-K3 roadmap item.

    • PR: [MoonEP] BF16 PoC integration for Kimi-K3 #33249
    • Validation: 8x H100 SXM (NV18) passed the BF16 dispatch -> prefetch -> compute -> combine correctness harness on 8 ranks with global_ok=true, max_abs_err=0.0, relative_err=0.0.
    • Docker/NCU note: suitable H100 Vast.ai hosts were container instances without Docker/NVIDIA Container Toolkit; host NCU counters were restricted, so no NCU performance claims are made.
  7. nvpohanh commented on Aug 5, 2026

    @nvpohanh
    Collaborator

    Support PP + Spec + PD Disagg

    Will #32281 cover this?

  8. charliechenye commented on Aug 12, 2026

    @charliechenye

    Quick design question coming out of reviewing #33249: what do we want the MoonEP + batch-overlap (BTO) contract to be in SGLang?

    The current PoC routes MoonEP through MaybeTboDeepEPDispatcher. When TBO is enabled, that wrapper creates two MoonEPDispatcher instances. At the same time, both dispatchers appear to resolve the process wide MoonEPBuffer using the same static key (shape/topology + process group), so they would reuse the same underlying moonep.Buffer.

    I may be missing some intended MoonEP semantics here, so wanted to check with the team before treating this as a bug:

    • Is the intended near-term contract that MoonEP is synchronous/eager only and TBO/SBO should be explicitly disabled for now?
    • Or do we expect a single MoonEP buffer to safely support the multiple in-flight plans needed by TBO, in which case the SGLang adapter should be designed around that lifecycle?

    My instinct for the current PoC would be to keep the supported surface narrow: disable overlap first, then add it once the buffer/plan ownership model is explicit. But I would love to understand the intended direction.

  9. liuqi-1 commented on Aug 13, 2026

    @liuqi-1

    Support PP + Spec + PD Disagg

    Will #32281 cover this?

    I only implemented PP+DSpark. It needs some adaptions to support PD.

  10. unpinned this issue on Sep 7, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions