Author here. Context for why I did this:
There's a growing literature arguing LRU is the wrong eviction policy for agentic LLM serving, because agent sessions idle and LRU can't distinguish a paused session from a dead one. I found the argument convincing and built a simulator to exploit it. Three separate mechanisms, all lost to plain radix-leaf LRU.
The reason turned out to be more useful than the policy. When I measured — policy-independently — where recompute actually comes from on 393 real Claude Code sessions, requests arriving after a gap longer than the 5-minute provider TTL account for 17.5% of it. Requests arriving within 10 seconds account for 33.1%. The dominant waste is tight tool loops whose 88k-token working sets exceed cache capacity, not sessions idling past a TTL. That's a capacity problem, and liveness prediction can't touch it.
> Author here.
The best kind of correct.
Why/when would people expect agents to be idling?
I'd have thought they'd be busy (using cached prompt-prefixes) until they were finished.
just curious, why the LLM writing even here?
it's just a bit disheartening to read Claude output for such a small comment like this.. it'd be great to read your own writings even if it's not as "perfect"