Hey Danny,

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking--

My understanding is that the slurmdb_uesd_limits_t struct to which I added
the 'nodes' and 'cpus' variables gets compiled into a user_limit_list that
is stored within the assoc_mgr_qos_usage_t. Since they're per-user limits it
looks like they need to be added to the slurmdb_used_limits_t struct. If
that's not correct please let me know and I'll be happy to make the
necessary adjustments to the patch. I can also work to make a patch against
2.3 as well.

Thanks!

-Aaron

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Auble, Danny <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Hey Aaron, thanks for the patch.
>
>
>
> A few questions/comments though.
>
>
>
> In the slurm/slurmdb.h file you added a ‘nodes’ and a ‘cpus’ variable there
> to be packed.  I only glanced at the patch (which will probably not go into
> 2.3 cleanly) and was wondering if these were needed outside of the
> slurmctld?  Is there any way you could just use the variables in the
> assoc_mgr_qos_usage_t structure, or add them there with the other tracking
> variables?  It would be nice to get a patch for 2.3 as well since only major
> bug fixes will be added to 2.2.
>
>
>
> The additions are a good idea though.  Thanks for them.  Let me know if you
> have any questions/concerns over my proposals.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Danny
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Knister
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 31, 2011 10:52 AM
> *To:* slurm-dev
> *Subject:* [slurm-dev] per-user node/cpu limits for QOS's
>
>
>
> Howdy,
>
> We have a need to limit how many nodes/CPUs a given user can use in a QOS.
> I've written a patch against 2.2.5 to do this that in testing appears to
> work as expected. I'm fairly sure this patch won't be able to be included in
> 2.2 since it bumps the SLURMDB_VERSION number, but none the less any
> feedback is appreciated.
>
> The patch can be found here:
> http://userpages.umbc.edu/~aaronk/slurm/patches/qos_per_user_node_cpu_limits.patch.
> I didn't paste it in the e-mail since it's 451 lines long :)
>
> -Aaron
>

Reply via email to