<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>KV Cache on Yunsheng Ni</title><link>https://niyunsheng.github.io/tags/kv-cache/</link><description>Recent content in KV Cache on Yunsheng Ni</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.154.5</generator><language>en-us</language><copyright>Content is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.</copyright><lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2026 09:30:00 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://niyunsheng.github.io/tags/kv-cache/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Absorbed MLA vs. Naive MLA: Same Linear FLOPs, 3.4x Core Attention</title><link>https://niyunsheng.github.io/absorbed-mla-vs-naive-mla/</link><pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2026 09:30:00 +0800</pubDate><guid>https://niyunsheng.github.io/absorbed-mla-vs-naive-mla/</guid><description>Matrix absorption rewrites MLA to attend directly on the compressed latent. A side-by-side PyTorch implementation plus a FLOPs breakdown shows the token-linear cost is bit-for-bit identical while core attention gets 3.4x more expensive — which is exactly why dense causal training keeps the naive form and sparse attention (DSA) training uses the absorbed one.</description></item></channel></rss>