Format is "name:used/total"

Cray - Improve support for zero compute note resource allocations.
Partition used can now be configured with no nodes nodes.

The symptom is that SLURM schedules lower priority jobs to run when higher priority, dependent jobs have their dependencies satisfied.  This happens because dependent jobs still have a priority of 1 when the job queue is sorted in the schedule() function.  The proposed fix forces jobs to have their priority updated when their dependencies are satisfied.

The symptom is that SLURM schedules lower priority jobs to run when higher priority, dependent jobs have their dependencies satisfied.  This happens because dependent jobs still have a priority of 1 when the job queue is sorted in the schedule() function.  The proposed fix forces jobs to have their priority updated when their dependencies are satisfied.

developments.

Here is the way to reproduce it :
[root@cuzco27 georgioy]# salloc -n64 -N4 --exclusive
salloc: Granted job allocation 8
[root@cuzco27 georgioy]#srun -r 0 -n 30 -N 2 sleep 300&
[root@cuzco27 georgioy]#srun -r 1 -n 40 -N 3 sleep 300&
[root@cuzco27 georgioy]# srun: error: slurm_receive_msg: Zero Bytes were transmitted or received
srun: error: Unable to create job step: Zero Bytes were transmitted or received

cpus in task/cgroup plugin

Cray - Add support for zero compute note resource allocation to run batch
script on front-end node with no ALPS reservation. Useful for pre- or post-
processing. NOTE: The partition must be configured with MinNodes=0.

batch jobs.

Sinfo output format of "%P" now prints "*" after default partition even if
no field width is specified (previously included "*" only if no field width
was specified. Added output format of "%R" to print partition name only
without identifying the default partition with "*").

Previously the code would come up with how much memory a PE should have
instead of the memory a node should have.

Mark Nelson.

larger than midplane jobs.

Add support for new SchedulerParameters of bf_max_job_user, maximum number
of jobs to attempt backfilling per user. Work by Bjørn-Helge Mevik,
University of Oslo.

Fix sched/wiki2 to support job account name, gres, partition name, wckey,
or working directory that contains "#" (a job record separator). Without
this patch, the parsing will probably stop once reaching the "#".

and time limit where it was previously set by an admin.

slurmdbd accounting and running large amounts of jobs (>50 sec).  Job
information could be corrupted before it had a chance to reach the DBD.

tasks than possible without overcommit the request would be allowed on more
nodes than requested.

Add documentation for the mpi/pmi2 plugin.
Minor changes to code formatting and logic, but old code should work fine.

Add support for new SchedulerParameters of max_depend_depth defining the
maximum number of jobs to test for circular dependencies (i.e. job A waits
for job B to start and job B waits for job A to start). Default value is
10 jobs.

The problem was conflicting logic in the select/cons_res plugin. Some of the code was trying to get the job the maximum node count in the range while other logic was trying to minimize spreading out of the job across multiple switches. As you note, this problem only happens when a range of node counts is specified and the select/cons_res plugin and the topology/tree plugin and even then it is not easy to reproduce (you included all of the details below).

Quoting Martin.Perry@Bull.com:

> Certain combinations of topology configuration and srun -N option produce
> spurious job rejection with "Requested node configuration is not
> available" with select/cons_res. The following example illustrates the
> problem.
>
> [sulu] (slurm) etc> cat slurm.conf
> ...
> TopologyPlugin=topology/tree
> SelectType=select/cons_res
> SelectTypeParameters=CR_Core
> ...
>
> [sulu] (slurm) etc> cat topology.conf
> SwitchName=s1 Nodes=xna[13-26]
> SwitchName=s2 Nodes=xna[41-45]
> SwitchName=s3 Switches=s[1-2]
>
> [sulu] (slurm) etc> sinfo
> PARTITION AVAIL  TIMELIMIT  NODES  STATE NODELIST
> ...
> jkob         up   infinite      4   idle xna[14,19-20,41]
> ...
>
> [sulu] (slurm) etc> srun -N 2-4 -n 4 -p jkob hostname
> srun: Force Terminated job 79
> srun: error: Unable to allocate resources: Requested node configuration is
> not available
>
> The problem does not occur with select/linear, or topology/none, or if -N
> is omitted, or for certain other values for -N (for example, -N 4-4 and -N
> 2-3 work ok). The problem seems to be in function _eval_nodes_topo in
> src/plugins/select/cons_res/job_test.c. The srun man page states that when
> -N is used, "the job will be allocated as many nodes as possible within
> the range specified and without delaying the initiation of the job."
> Consistent with this description, the requested number of nodes in the
> above example is 4 (req_nodes=4).  However, the code that selects the
> best-fit topology switches appears to make the selection based on the
> minimum required number of nodes (min_nodes=2). It therefore selects
> switch s1.  s1 has only 3 nodes from partition jkob. Since this is fewer
> than req_nodes the job is rejected with the "node configuration" error.
>
> I'm not sure where the code is going wrong.  It could be in the
> calculation of the number of needed nodes in function _enough_nodes.  Or
> it could be in the code that initializes/updates req_nodes or rem_nodes. I
> don't feel confident that I understand the logic well enough to propose a
> fix without introducing a regression.
>
> Regards,
> Martin

When the optional max_time is not specified for --switches=count, the site
max (SchedulerParameters=max_switch_wait=seconds) is used for the job.
Based on patch from Rod Schultz.

accounting.  Work contributed by Mark Nelson.

The problem was conflicting logic in the select/cons_res plugin. Some of the code was trying to get the job the maximum node count in the range while other logic was trying to minimize spreading out of the job across multiple switches. As you note, this problem only happens when a range of node counts is specified and the select/cons_res plugin and the topology/tree plugin and even then it is not easy to reproduce (you included all of the details below).

Quoting Martin.Perry@Bull.com:

> Certain combinations of topology configuration and srun -N option produce
> spurious job rejection with "Requested node configuration is not
> available" with select/cons_res. The following example illustrates the
> problem.
>
> [sulu] (slurm) etc> cat slurm.conf
> ...
> TopologyPlugin=topology/tree
> SelectType=select/cons_res
> SelectTypeParameters=CR_Core
> ...
>
> [sulu] (slurm) etc> cat topology.conf
> SwitchName=s1 Nodes=xna[13-26]
> SwitchName=s2 Nodes=xna[41-45]
> SwitchName=s3 Switches=s[1-2]
>
> [sulu] (slurm) etc> sinfo
> PARTITION AVAIL  TIMELIMIT  NODES  STATE NODELIST
> ...
> jkob         up   infinite      4   idle xna[14,19-20,41]
> ...
>
> [sulu] (slurm) etc> srun -N 2-4 -n 4 -p jkob hostname
> srun: Force Terminated job 79
> srun: error: Unable to allocate resources: Requested node configuration is
> not available
>
> The problem does not occur with select/linear, or topology/none, or if -N
> is omitted, or for certain other values for -N (for example, -N 4-4 and -N
> 2-3 work ok). The problem seems to be in function _eval_nodes_topo in
> src/plugins/select/cons_res/job_test.c. The srun man page states that when
> -N is used, "the job will be allocated as many nodes as possible within
> the range specified and without delaying the initiation of the job."
> Consistent with this description, the requested number of nodes in the
> above example is 4 (req_nodes=4).  However, the code that selects the
> best-fit topology switches appears to make the selection based on the
> minimum required number of nodes (min_nodes=2). It therefore selects
> switch s1.  s1 has only 3 nodes from partition jkob. Since this is fewer
> than req_nodes the job is rejected with the "node configuration" error.
>
> I'm not sure where the code is going wrong.  It could be in the
> calculation of the number of needed nodes in function _enough_nodes.  Or
> it could be in the code that initializes/updates req_nodes or rem_nodes. I
> don't feel confident that I understand the logic well enough to propose a
> fix without introducing a regression.
>
> Regards,
> Martin