mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Insights into resource utilization of code small language models serving with runtime engines and execution providers

arXiv 2412.15441 ↗First posted 19 Dec 2024cs.SE cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid growth of language models, particularly in code generation, requires substantial computational resources, raising concerns about energy consumption and environmental impact. Optimizing language models inference resource utilization is crucial, and Small Language Models (SLMs) offer a promising solution to reduce resource demands. Our goal is to analyze the impact of deep learning serving configurations, defined as combinations of runtime engines and execution providers, on resource utilization, in terms of energy consumption, execution time, and computing-resource utilization from the point of view of software engineers conducting inference in the context of code generation SLMs. We conducted a technology-oriented, multi-stage experimental pipeline using twelve code generation SLMs to investigate energy consumption, execution time, and computing-resource utilization across the configurations. Significant differences emerged across configurations. CUDA execution provider configurations outperformed CPU execution provider configurations in both energy consumption and execution time. Among the configurations, TORCH paired with CUDA demonstrated the greatest energy efficiency, achieving energy savings from 37.99% up to 89.16% compared to other serving configurations. Similarly, optimized runtime engines like ONNX with the CPU execution provider achieved from 8.98% up to 72.04% energy savings within CPU-based configurations. Also, TORCH paired with CUDA exhibited efficient computing-resource utilization. Serving configuration choice significantly impacts resource utilization. While further research is needed, we recommend the above configurations best suited to software engineers' requirements for enhancing serving resource utilization efficiency.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 44 of its 86 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Dec 2024.

Builds on

44 of 86 references.

References · 44

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  3. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  4. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
  5. 2019Megatron-LM: Training Multi-Billion Parameter Language Models Using Model Parallelismcited by 1,868
  6. 2019Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLPcited by 1,254
  7. 2023Distilling Step-by-Step! Outperforming Larger Language Models with Less Training Data and Smaller Model Sizescited by 737
  8. 2024MiniCPM: Unveiling the Potential of Small Language Models with Scalable Training Strategiescited by 723
  9. 2020It's Not Just Size That Matters: Small Language Models Are Also Few-Shot Learnerscited by 669
  10. 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 658
  11. 2019Green AIcited by 627
  12. 2022InCoder: A Generative Model for Code Infilling and Synthesiscited by 498
32 more
  1. 2021Dynamic Neural Networks: A Surveycited by 408
  2. 2022A Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models of Codecited by 363
  3. 2022Efficient Training of Language Models to Fill in the Middlecited by 255
  4. 2024A Survey on Efficient Inference for Large Language Modelscited by 205
  5. 2022Large Language Models Meet NL2Code: A Surveycited by 138
  6. 2024LLaVA-Phi: Efficient Multi-Modal Assistant with Small Language Modelcited by 129
  7. 2024A Comprehensive Survey of Small Language Models in the Era of Large Language Models: Techniques, Enhancements, Applications, Collaboration with LLMs, and Trustworthinesscited by 127
  8. 2022Measuring the Carbon Intensity of AI in Cloud Instancescited by 111
  9. 2022Productivity Assessment of Neural Code Completioncited by 98
  10. 2023Impact of Code Language Models on Automated Program Repaircited by 85
  11. 2023A Systematic Review of Green AIcited by 77
  12. 2024Model Compression and Efficient Inference for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 64
  13. 2023On the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Domain-Specific Code Generationcited by 44
  14. 2020Fast and Memory-Efficient Neural Code Completioncited by 38
  15. 2024A Survey of Small Language Modelscited by 31
  16. 2023ChatGPT Needs SPADE (Sustainability, PrivAcy, Digital divide, and Ethics) Evaluation: A Reviewcited by 28
  17. 2022Compressing Pre-trained Models of Code into 3 MBcited by 21
  18. 2023Greening Large Language Models of Codecited by 19
  19. 2023Energy Efficiency of Training Neural Network Architectures: An Empirical Studycited by 15
  20. 2019pCAMP: Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Packages on the Edgescited by 12
  21. 2024When Neural Code Completion Models Size up the Situation: Attaining Cheaper and Faster Completion through Dynamic Model Inferencecited by 10
  22. 2024Ecosystem of Large Language Models for Codecited by 10
  23. 2023On the Opportunities of Green Computing: A Surveycited by 7
  24. 2024Lessons Learned from Mining the Hugging Face Repositorycited by 7
  25. 2021Which Design Decisions in AI-enabled Mobile Applications Contribute to Greener AI?cited by 6
  26. 2023EnergiBridge: Empowering Software Sustainability through Cross-Platform Energy Measurementcited by 6
  27. 2023A Green(er) World for A.Icited by 5
  28. 2024Towards Architecting Sustainable MLOps: A Self-Adaptation Approachcited by 4
  29. 2022Energy Consumption of Automated Program Repaircited by 3
  30. 2023Towards green AI-based software systems: an architecture-centric approach (GAISSA)cited by 3
  31. 2024On the Impact of Black-box Deployment Strategies for Edge AI on Latency and Model Performancecited by 3
  32. 2024Identifying architectural design decisions for achieving green ML servingcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.