show information to users that had no associations on the system.

Fix for bug 330

Previously srun would fail if the hostlist expression was larger
than 0xffff bytes.

When using ThreadsPerCore > 1, it appears that DefMemPerCPU is being
scaled by slurmctld, but not by slurmd/slurmstepd.

For example, we set ThreadsPerCore=2 and DefMemPerCPU=100. Running a
single core job, we would expect two threads to be allocated and AllocMem
on the assigned node to increase by 200MB. scontrol reports that AllocMem
increased by 200MB, but the task/cgroup plugin only sees 100M of RAM.

It looks like the problem may lie in common/slurm_cred.c:format_core_allocs().
The function counts the job/step cores and multiplies the mem_limit's,
but it does not scale the CPU count like in slurmd/slurmd/req.c:_check_job_credential().
See bug 309

Effects jobs with --exclusive and --cpus-per-task options
bug 355

enum.

for as the job/step id.

The SLURM Makefile.am scripts use pkglibexecdir. One source indicates
that this was not added until automake 1.10.2
(https://github.com/rerun/rerun/issues/167).

So we just made that to be the minimum.

Under very heavy load with many thousands of batch job submissions
or job signals, the write lock can be held for very long periods of
time preventing job scheduling, squeue response, etc. This code
inserts a timing break to permit other functions to get the locks.

default and appeared to break other things.

specified.

if on "scontrol reconfig" when AllowNodes is manually changed using
scontrol since last slurmctld restart.

due to either down nodes or explicit resizing.
Generated slurmctld errors of this type:
[2013-06-04T12:43:46+06:00] error: gres/gpu: step_test 68662.4294967294 gres_bit_alloc is NULL
This is a movement of the logic introduced in commit
https://github.com/SchedMD/slurm/commit/6fff97bb77d2d88aa808c47fd7880246a0c1d090
to eliminate a memory leak.

overwritten by the parallel versions thus making it so we need handle
both cases.

Since we don't currently track energy usage per task (only per step).
Otherwise we get double the energy.

Andy Wettstein (University of Chicago) reported privately to me that slurmctld
2.5.4 crashed after he enabled the priority/multifactor2 plugin due to a
division by zero error.

I was able to reproduce the crash by creating an account hierarchy where all
the accounts and users had zero shares.
See bug 315

Revert premature change of META

Without this change, it appears that POE ignores the -procs argument
resulting in a job step request with multiple host names, but only
one ntask required

For example "host1*2" is equivalent to "host1,host1".

Without this change, it appears that POE ignores the -procs argument
resulting in a job step request with multiple host names, but only
one ntask required

We're having some trouble getting our slurm jobs to successfully
restart after a checkpoint.  For this test, I'm using sbatch and a
simple, single-threaded executable.  Slurm is 2.5.4, blcr is 0.8.5.
I'm submitting the job using sbatch:

$ sbatch -n 1 -t 12:00:00 bin/bowtie-ex.sh

I am able to create the checkpoint and vacate the node:

$ scontrol checkpoint create 137
.... time passes ....
$ scontrol vacate 137

At that point, I see the checkpoint file from blcr in the current
directory and the checkpoint file from Slurm
in /var/spool/slurm-llnl/checkpoint.  However, when I attempt to
restart the job:

$ scontrol checkpoint restart 137
scontrol_checkpoint error: Node count specification invalid

In slurmctld's log (at level 7) I see:

[2013-05-29T12:41:08-07:00] debug2: Processing RPC: REQUEST_CHECKPOINT(restart) from uid=*****
[2013-05-29T12:41:08-07:00] debug3: Version string in job_ckpt header is JOB_CKPT_002
[2013-05-29T12:41:08-07:00] _job_create: max_nodes == 0
[2013-05-29T12:41:08-07:00] _slurm_rpc_checkpoint restart 137: Node count specification invalid

Rename slurm_step_ctx_params_t field from "mem_per_cpu" to "pn_min_memory".
Job step now accepts memory specification in either per-cpu or per-node basis.

Uninitialized variables resulted in error of
"cons_res: sync loop not progressing, holding job #"

The most notable problem case is on a cray where a job step
specifically requests one or more node that are not the first
nodes in the job allocation