for passthrough gets removed on a dynamic system.

in error for passthrough.

user's pending allocation was started with srun and then for some reason
the slurmctld was brought down and while it was down the srun was removed.

previously it overwrote the poll_thread id

This is needed for when a free request is added to a block but there are
jobs finishing up so we don't start new jobs on the block since they will
fail on start.

Previously the node count would change from c-node count to midplane count
(but still be interpreted as a c-node count).

4b1aed73

See bugzilla bug 132

When using select/cons_res and CR_Core_Memory, hyperthreaded nodes may be
overcommitted on memory when CPU counts are scaled. I've tested 2.4.2 and HEAD
(2.5.0-pre3).

Conditions:
-----------
* SelectType=select/cons_res
* SelectTypeParameters=CR_Core_Memory
* Using threads
  - Ex. "NodeName=linux0 Sockets=1 CoresPerSocket=4 ThreadsPerCore=2
RealMemory=400"

Description:
------------
In the cons_res plugin, _verify_node_state() in job_test.c checks if a node has
sufficient memory for a job. However, the per-CPU memory limits appear to be
scaled by the number of threads. This new value may exceed the available memory
on the node. And, once a node is overcommitted on memory, future memory checks
in _verify_node_state() will always succeed.

Scenario to reproduce:
----------------------
With the example node linux0, we run a single-core job with 250MB/core
    srun --mem-per-cpu=250 sleep 60

cons_res checks that it will fit: ((real - alloc) >= job mem)
    ((400 - 0) >= 250) and the job starts

Then, the memory requirement is doubled:
    "slurmctld: error: cons_res: node linux0 memory is overallocated (500) for
job X"
    "slurmd: scaling CPU count by factor of 2"

This job should not have started

While the first job is still running, we submit a second, identical job
    srun --mem-per-cpu=250 sleep 60

cons_res checks that it will fit:
    ((400 - 500) >= 250), the unsigned int wraps, the test passes, and the job
starts

This second job also should not have started

purged from the system if its front-end node goes down.

database, and the job is running on a small block make sure we free up
the correct node count.

This addresses bug 130

with a job running or trying to run on it.

are planning on using the block.  Previously it would fail those jobs
erroneously.

no big deal, but now we get just a bit more memory allocated (4152 over
instead of the 4100 we were previously looking for)