The Definitive Guide to Continuous Batching LLM for AI Inference

Bursty LLM traffic often creates a painful tradeoff: idle GPUs when demand drops, or spiking response times when requests surge. The result is wasted hardware and unpredictable user experiences. By dynamically grouping requests, LLM Inference Optimization, tuning batching windows, and scheduling intelligently, it transforms how inference servers utilize GPUs, delivering higher throughput, lower latency, and more predictable performance. This guide unpacks the principles, best practices, and production-ready strategies for implementing continuous batching LLM, enabling inference systems to run faster, smoother, and more cost-efficiently.

Inference's AI inference APIs make these techniques easy to apply, offering built-in batching controls, simple scaling, and request routing, so you can reach your performance goals without building complex infrastructure.

What Is Continuous Batching and Why Is It Important?

Continuous batching groups inference requests in real time instead of waiting for one fixed batch to fill. With static batching, you collect a set of prompts, pack them into a single multidimensional input, and then run the model until every sequence in that group has finished.

Continuous batching accepts individual requests as they arrive, schedules token generation step by step, and swaps sequences into and out of the active GPU work set. The difference is that static batching bundles once and holds until it is done, while continuous batching dynamically composes the on-device batch with each token step.

Why This Matters for LLM Inference: Efficiency, Throughput, and Latency

Continuous batching enables the GPU to perform practical work while allowing short requests to complete without waiting for long ones. It increases throughput by reducing idle compute cycles and reduces average latency because sequences leave the active set as soon as they complete. Continuous batching also reduces padding waste and frees KV cache memory earlier, which helps support more concurrent users on the same hardware.

Batching Basics: Throughput, Latency, and the Trade-Off

Batching bundles multiple prompts to boost GPU arithmetic efficiency, improving tokens per second. The larger the batch, the better the TPS, up to hardware limits. Adding prompts also increases latency for individual requests, as each must wait for the batch to progress through the token steps. That trade-off splits workloads, offline inference favors throughput, while online interactive inference requires a balance between latency and throughput.

Two Workloads to Compare: Offline Versus Online Inference

Offline inference runs non-interactive jobs, like nightly text generation for reports. Latency is not the priority; TPS and overall GPU cost per token are the targets. Online inference powers chat and interactive agents, where user experience depends on low latency. Here, you must tune scheduling and batching to keep both token throughput and delay within acceptable limits.

Static Batching Explained: How Traditional Grouping Works

Static batching creates a multidimensional input from several prompts and passes it into the model instance, commonly as a Python object that calls a generate function. Libraries such as vLLM make that path easy and fast for offline tasks

The whole batch advances in lockstep; the GPU computes the same transformer steps for every sequence in the batch at each iteration. This approach maximizes raw throughput when sequence lengths are uniform and latency is not a concern.

The Problem With Static Batching: Why It Becomes a Bottleneck

Generating text is sequential. Each next token depends on the previous tokens stored in the KV cache. Requests differ in prompt length and requested output length. When a static batch contains a mix of long and short sequences, the entire pack must continue running until the longest sequence is completed.

Short sequences sit idle in GPU memory, consuming compute cycles, and the system often pads shorter sequences during computation, wasting operations and memory. The result is a higher average latency for short requests and poorer overall GPU utilization.

How Continuous Batching Works, Step by Step

• Request queue: Incoming inference requests enter a waiting queue exposed by the inference endpoint, often via the OpenAI API compatible interface.
• Iteration level scheduling: The server generates tokens one step at a time for the active set of sequences on the GPU.
• Detect finished sequences: At each generation step, the scheduler removes sequences that reached their desired length. Removing them frees KV cache memory and compute slots.
• Fill freed slots: The scheduler pulls new requests from the waiting queue and injects them into the active batch if GPU memory and compute capacity are available.
• Compute next token: The GPU runs the transformer computations for the current active set to produce the next token for each sequence. The cycle repeats

This token-level scheduling and preemption allow the active batch to evolve, maintaining high GPU throughput while enabling short sequences to complete early.

Key Implementation Concepts to Watch

• KV cache management: Quickly freeing and reclaiming per sequence key value caches is essential to avoid memory fragmentation.
• Token-level scheduling: Treat each generation step as a scheduling quantum and update batch composition each quantum.
• Request preemption and fairness: Allow long-running sequences to yield slots moderately so shorter requests do not starve.
• Micro-batching and padding avoidance: Compose batches with similar sequence lengths whenever possible to minimize computational waste.
• OpenAPI compatibility and vLLM: An endpoint-based design maps cleanly to industry-standard APIs while retaining high performance.

Concrete Example 1: Chat Service With Mixed Request Lengths

Imagine a chat where most users request brief replies, but a few require lengthy, multi-paragraph responses. With static batches, the short chats wait while the one long reply continues, resulting in a latency of several seconds.

With continuous batching, those short chats slip into free slots, producing responses in tens or hundreds of milliseconds, while the long reply continues to step on the GPU. Users perceive faster replies, and the same GPUs serve more concurrent sessions.

Concrete Example 2: Nightly Offline Job Versus Real-Time Alerts

For a nightly job that generates millions of tokens, static batching can maximize GPU utilization and minimize the cost per token, as latency is irrelevant. For a real-time alert system that requires both high throughput and low tail latency, continuous batching enables alerts to be generated quickly without compromising the throughput gains of batching when load spikes occur.

Benefits of Continuous Batching LLM and Adaptive Scheduling

• Higher sustained throughput: Constantly refilling the active batch reduces idle cycles and increases tokens per second.
• Lower average and tail latency: Short requests finish once their sequences complete instead of waiting for the longest member of a static group.
• Better GPU utilization: KV cache memory is reused dynamically, and compute stays occupied with active sequences.
• Flexible handling of mixed workloads: The scheduler adapts to changing mixes of short and long requests in real time.
• API friendly serving: Operating as an OpenAPI-compatible endpoint simplifies integration for most production systems.

Trade-Offs and Practical Concerns to Monitor

You need a robust scheduler that tracks KV cache, token budgets, and fairness. Memory fragmentation can occur if KV cache allocations are not managed. Latency jitter may rise slightly if the scheduler aggressively swaps sequences; tune the preemption policy to control jitter

Implementing adaptive batching incurs additional engineering costs compared to a simple static pipeline, but it pays back in terms of utilization and user experience for interactive systems.

Questions to Ask When Choosing a Batching Strategy

• Do you prioritize raw tokens per second or user-perceived latency?
• How mixed are your sequence length distributions?
• Can your deployment handle KV cache allocation and reclamation at token granularity?

Answering these questions will help determine whether to use static batching for pure offline work or continuous batching for interactive and mixed workloads.

Related Reading

• Model Context Protocol
• Speculative Decoding
• Lora Fine Tuning
• Gradient Checkpointing
• LLM Use Cases
• Post Training Quantization
• LLM Quantization
• vLLM Continuous Batching

Continuous Batching for LLM Inference in Production

Running one request at a time leaves most of the GPU idle. Modern GPUs achieve peak throughput when kernels work on large, densely packed tensors. Processing single sequences means the expensive weight loads and GPU kernel launches serve tiny activation matrices, so memory bandwidth and tensor cores sit unused.

For early testing, a FastAPI server with PyTorch is sufficient, but keep in mind that moving to production without batching trades results in higher costs per token and poor cost efficiency.

Static Batching: Scheduled Bulk Work

Static batching collects requests until a target batch size is reached, and then executes the entire batch. Use cases include nightly corpus processing or map-reduce passes where latency is not a concern. The implementation is straightforward: a queue paired with a timer or a cron job that schedules runs.

The trade-offs become apparent when user waiting time is a concern; if traffic is sparse or bursty, clients experience long waits because the batch builder waits for fill, and you must manage queuing and backpressure elsewhere in the system.

Dynamic Batching: Timer Plus Fill Strategy

Dynamic batching starts a short timer when the first request in a batch arrives and runs when either the batch fills or the time window expires. This works well when, per request, compute time is uniform, for example, many image generation models where each request costs similar GPU cycles.

Typical knobs are max batch size and batching window, often in the 10 to 200 millisecond range, depending on latency targets. Set these parameters based on traffic profiles and latency SLOs, and instrument p50 and p95 latencies to pick the right balance.

Continuous Batching: Token-Level Scheduling for LLMs

LLMs generate token sequences of varying lengths, so request-level batching wastes cycles when the slowest request holds a slot. Continuous batching schedules at the iteration level: after the prefill step, the server steps across model layers and applies each layer to the current token for multiple requests, keeping the GPU busy by filling any freed slots with new requests.

The system maintains KV caches per sequence and cycles requests through a token loop, allowing generation interleaving across multiple sessions. That pattern increases tokens per second while keeping the p95 next-token latency within bounds.

Handling Unpredictable Request Patterns With Continuous Batching

Continuous batching tolerates variability by treating each request as a lightweight guest in an in-flight pool. When a long request finishes, its slot immediately accepts a queued request, and the scheduler starts token processing for that new sequence.

The server uses asynchronous queues and admission control to avoid overcommitting memory. Likewise, when traffic is light, the scheduler still performs token batches across a smaller active set, avoiding the high fixed cost of spinning up new GPUs for each small load.

Maximizing GPU Utilization and Memory Bandwidth

The primary bottleneck in LLM inference is weight streaming and memory bandwidth. Continuous batching reuses the same weight loads to compute many activations across different sequences, sharing the layer weight cost across tokens and increasing arithmetic intensity.

Use memory-friendly kernels like fused attention or FlashAttention and optimize data placement for KV caches to reduce memory traffic. Combine token-level scheduling with tensor parallel or pipeline parallel model placements carefully so that communication overhead does not cancel out the batching gains.

Balancing Latency-Sensitive Versus Throughput-Oriented Workloads

Add priority lanes and small dedicated fleets. Offer two admission classes, latency-sensitive requests are directed to a fast path with smaller maximum batch sizes or reserved GPU capacity, while throughput jobs utilize the continuous batching pool.

Implement preemption or soft priority where the scheduler pulls low-priority requests out of token generation when needed, and return partial responses or stream tokens for the higher-priority flows.

Implementation Details: Prefill, KV Cache, Token Loop, and Scheduler

Prefill processes the input context and fills the KV cache; it is compute-intensive because it processes the entire input once. After prefilling, the next token loop runs many inexpensive iterations, during which the KV cache is extended and attention is read for earlier tokens.

The server maintains per sequence state, including attention keys and values, position counters, RNG seeds for sampling, and stopping criteria. The scheduler steps through layers in a pipelined loop, packs active sequences into a micro batch for each layer, and then launches optimized kernels. Keep a cap on per-sequence KV memory and enforce max sequence lengths to protect against out-of-memory behavior.

Packing Strategies: Padding, Bucketing, and Heterogeneous Sequence Shapes

Sequence length heterogeneity reduces GPU efficiency if you pad everything to the longest sequence. Use techniques such as length buckets or grouped scheduling to ensure batches contain sequences of similar remaining lengths

When bucket sizes become small, fall back to mixing shorter sequences with controlled padding or use shape-aware kernels that accept ragged inputs. Additionally, implement dynamic shard assignment to fill GPU memory with multiple smaller KV caches instead of a few oversized ones.

Sampling, Beam Search, and Stateful Generation Interactions

Sampling strategies matter. Top k or nucleus sampling requires per-sequence RNG and typically cannot be vectorized across beams without careful synchronization. Beam search increases memory per request dramatically because each beam maintains its own KV cache and hypotheses. Continuous batching handles sampling by treating each active hypothesis as an independent sequence in the token loop or by restricting beam widths on shared fleets to control memory growth.

Multi-Tenant, Fairness, and Backpressure

In production, you will serve multiple tenants. Use admission control and quotas per tenant. Enforce per tenant token budgets and queue length caps. If one tenant floods the system, the scheduler should throttle it and preserve SLOs for other tenants. Track per-tenant tokens per second and implement backpressure to upstream services or SDKs when queue depth exceeds thresholds.

Autoscaling, Warm-Up, and Cold Start

Autoscale based on tokens per second and GPU memory pressure rather than request count. Warm up new instances by preloading models and running a few synthetic prefill passes to populate caches and JIT kernels. Use a low-latency pool of warm replicas for bursty traffic and shift long-running throughput jobs to a separate autoscaled fleet.

Telemetry, Observability, and Metrics to Watch

Instrument tokens per second, first token latency, next token p50 and p95, KV cache memory per sequence, GPU occupancy and SM utilization, queue depths, and retry rates. Correlate tail latency spikes with batch builder behavior and bucket skew. Collect traces that show token loop cycles to spot inefficiencies in packing or kernel launch overhead.

Practical Engineering Patterns and APIs

Implement the batching layer as an independent scheduler component that sits between the network stack and the model worker. Use asynchronous workers, lock-free queues, and a small real-time thread that triggers micro-batch launches. Expose control knobs via API:

• Max in flight sequences
• Per request priority
• Sampling options
• Client streaming for token returns

Use flow control headers or gRPC streams to allow clients to adjust their request rates.

Framework Reference Notes You Can Follow

vLLM implements continuous batching with an iteration scheduler, emphasizing runtime memory management and admission control. Text Generation Inference provides token-level scheduling in its model server. TensorRT LLM offers in-flight batching, which achieves similar effects using optimized CUDA kernels and TRT engines.

NVIDIA Triton provides dynamic batching at the request level and can be extended or combined with token loop approaches for LLMs. Hugging Face Inference Endpoints and many cloud APIs implement variant mixes, small, reserved, low-latency pathways plus larger throughput pools that utilize batching.

Tuning Checklist and Practical Knobs

• Max in-flight sequences per GPU: Tune to fit KV cache memory and model parallel layout.
• Batching window: Short for strict latency targets, longer for throughput gains.
• Shape bucketing thresholds: Group sequences by remaining length to reduce padding waste.
• Priority lanes: Reserve capacity for latency-sensitive traffic.
• Sampling limits: Cap beams and top k to bound memory growth.
• Probe tests: Simulate mixed workloads and run chaos tests for tail latency behavior

Related Reading

• KV Cache Explained
• LLM Performance Metrics
• Pytorch Inference
• Serving Ml Models
• LLM Benchmark Comparison
• Inference Optimization
• Inference Latency

Best Practices For Implementing Continuous Batching LLM

Choose the scheduler with a clear metric in mind:

• Want the lowest tail latency for interactive users? Favor preemptive, priority-aware scheduling that limits queue wait and packs only small compatible requests.
• Chasing maximum throughput for batch jobs? Use aggressive batch packing and longer accumulation windows to fill GPUs
• Trying to cut costs across many tenants? Utilize fair sharing, request coalescing, and admission control to maintain GPU saturation without overprovisioning.

Configure scheduling knobs explicitly:

• Maximum batch size
• Maximum queue wait time
• Priority classes
• Preemption thresholds

Test FIFO, shortest remaining time first, and deadline-aware policies under realistic mixes and record p95 and p99 latency changes; tune the policy until it delivers the user experience and cost profile you require.

Tune Batch Sizes With Controlled Experiments

Measure throughput and latency as you change batch size rather than guessing. Start with single-request runs and increase the batch size until the tokens per second level off or the latency SLO is breached. Many models exhibit throughput growth up to a point (for some setups, around 64 tokens) and then saturation.

Use token-based batching for long contexts, enforce per-request token limits, and cap batch size by GPU memory and model memory footprint. Try micro-batching for latency-sensitive workloads: accept smaller batches or slice longer requests into chunks so the scheduler can fill gaps.

Record distributions:

• Batch size histogram
• Average wait time
• Tail latency per batch size
• Pick a setting with a safety margin to absorb spikes

Set Latency Bounds That Reflect User Experience

Define SLOs in concrete terms, p50, p95, and p99 latencies for requests and tokens. Convert client-side expectations into server-side budgets by subtracting network and queuing time from the total budget so the scheduler enforces a realistic queue wait ceiling. Set a max queue wait time and a hard deadline for preemption or fallback to a faster model mode.

Assign different latency budgets per tenant or endpoint when traffic mixes interactive and background workloads. Run synthetic spike tests and verify that the scheduler honors these bounds under stress and that failure modes degrade gracefully rather than break SLAs.

Monitor the Right Signals in Real Time

Instrument for throughput in tokens per second and requests per second, GPU utilization and GPU memory use, latency percentiles and fluctuations, queue length and batch formation delay, preempt counts and eviction events, retry rates and error codes. Push these metrics to a monitoring stack and correlate them:

• Does GPU utilization drop when the queue length rises?
• Do you see long tails when the batch size increases?

Set alerts for sustained low utilization, rising p99 latency, and increasing queue wait. Capture per-request tracing with batch ID, wait time, batch size, and model version, allowing you to replay and analyze problematic patterns.

Match Batching Strategy to Application Needs

Ask what you are optimizing for:

• Minimize tail latency
• Reduce the dollar per token
• Maximize throughput

Latency, Cost, and Mixed Traffic Strategies

If you need low tail latency, limit batching windows, enforce small max batch sizes, prefer preemption-friendly policies, and fast paths. For cost efficiency and throughput, allow longer accumulation, higher batch size, lower precision, and tenant packing.

If you encounter mixed traffic, isolate interactive paths with separate queues or priority tags, while allowing background work to utilize any remaining capacity. Revisit these choices whenever user patterns or traffic mix change.

Optimize Resources: Memory, Precision, and Kernel Choices

Optimize GPU memory utilization to the optimal level, but avoid overcommitting. GPU memory caps the largest sustainable batch size and determines whether you can use larger batches or need model offload. Use lower-precision modes, such as FP16 or BF16, or quantization to reduce memory and increase batch size possibilities, while monitoring for small accuracy shifts.

Tune allocator and workspace sizes, enable optimized kernels and fused operators, and test model sharding or tensor parallelism for significant variants. Try techniques like PagedAttention for very long contexts to avoid paging stalls and reduce memory pressure during batching.

Integrate Batching Into Your System Design

Design the API and RPC layer so clients can provide hints:

• Per request priority
• Deadline
• Expected token cost

Implement admission control to throttle low-priority traffic and backpressure to prevent queue collapse. Keep scheduler logic colocated with inference endpoints or centralize it behind a fast router; either way, propagate SLOs and priority tags downstream so the scheduler can make real-time decisions. Ensure graceful preemption paths that either resume partial work or requeue requests with preserved ordering and metadata.

Continuous Batching LLM in Practice: Real-Time Scheduling and Preemption

Continuous batching LLM behavior means the system schedules and preempts inference requests as load shifts so GPUs remain productive without breaking latency bounds. Implement a constant batch assembly process that monitors incoming request streams, merges compatible requests, and preempts when deadlines approach or higher-priority work arrives.

Track batch formation delays to determine when batching is beneficial and when it is detrimental. Build that capability and test it under bursty traffic.

Run an Iterative Optimization Cycle

Treat tuning as a repeating process:

• Collect data
• Adjust batch size
• Tweak scheduling policy
• Modify precision and memory settings
• Measure again

Automate load tests that mirror production mixes, run canary changes to scheduling knobs, and use A/B experiments when possible. Record baselines and regressions for throughput, cost, and latency percentiles. Add automated autotuning that nudges max batch size and wait time until utilization improves without breaking SLOs, and integrate advanced tactics like PagedAttention, kernel fusion, or quantized inference as next steps for performance gains.

Related Reading

• Inference Acceleration
• vLLM Multi-GPU
• Memory-Efficient Attention
• Distributed Inference
• Inference Solutions
• KV Caching

Start Building with $10 in Free API Credits Today!

Inference exposes OpenAI-compatible serverless inference APIs that run on top of open-source large language models. The service supports state-of-the-art models with a focus on cost efficiency and high throughput. You get $10 in free API credits to try prompt calls, streaming responses, and batched workloads on real traffic.

How Continuous Batching Works Under the Hood for Real-Time and Async Calls

Continuous batching groups incoming requests into GPU runs, rather than processing each request individually. The system utilizes micro-batching and request coalescing to fill batch windows, then executes a single prefill and decode pass that serves multiple sessions simultaneously.

Adaptive batching changes the batch size and wait time based on current load, SLO targets like p95 and p99 latency, and GPU utilization. That means the scheduler trades off a little added queuing for much higher throughput through batch packing and batch-aware scheduling.

How Inference Handles Large-Scale Async AI Workloads With Specialized Batch Processing

For high-volume jobs, Inference runs async job queues that collect requests and assemble efficient batches. The pipeline supports batch size adaptation, prioritized queued requests, and load balancing across instances.

Engineers tune batch windows, timeouts, and batch packing to minimize wasted capacity while maintaining predictable tail latency. The system autoscales GPU instances and adjusts batching behavior when load spikes occur, maintaining steady throughput for thousands of concurrent jobs.

Document Extraction and Retrieval Augmented Generation Done for Production

Document extraction pipelines split files into chunks sized for the model context window, run tokenization and embedding generation, and store vectors for fast retrieval. Retrieval uses index-based search, reranking, and lightweight scoring to assemble the top context slices for RAG prompts.

Post-processing merges extracted fields, applies OCR confidence thresholds, and assembles the final prompt with minimal token bloat, allowing the model to spend its compute on inference rather than handling redundant content.

Performance Levers That Matter for Continuous Batching LLM Deployments

You can enhance GPU efficiency through quantization, mixed precision (such as FP16 or INT8), model sharding, tensor parallelism, and pipeline parallelism. A KV cache saves prefill keys and values for decoder models so repeated context does not require repeated computation.

Streaming Inference and token streaming return partial outputs while the model decodes the following tokens. Warm pools and session affinity reduce cold start time for stateful sessions and lower latency tail without sacrificing batch size.

Operational Signals and Cost Controls to Watch

Track throughput, average, and tail latency, GPU utilization, batch size distribution, cache hit rate, and cost per token. Set SLOs and let the adaptive batch scheduler balance latency and efficiency to stay inside those targets. You can also enforce CPU fallback and scaled instance counts to handle bursts, while maintaining predictable billing and utilization metrics.

Developer Experience and Getting Started Fast

The API utilizes OpenAI-compatible request and response shapes, allowing you to switch client code with minimal changes. SDKs and examples show how to request streaming responses, batch prompts, and submit async jobs for large-scale extraction.

Sign up, claim $10 in free API credits, run a few prompt experiments with different batch windows and model sizes, and observe how continuous batching, token streaming, and cache reuse affect your throughput and spend