Wow. I know how to read, really! Long day :) Thanks for accepting the patch and fixing it up!
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Danny Auble <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Aaron, the problem is the number shouldn't of been bumped (per the > message right next to the 9) ;). You also missed an unpack as well, it > isn't a big deal I'll send you a link to the approved patch when it is done. > > Danny > > On Monday, June 13, 2011 05:04:14 PM you wrote: > > Hi Danny, > > > > That makes me wonder if you got the right patch (caching issues etc.). In > > the patch I'm looking at I bumped SLURMDBD_VERSION to 10 in > slurmdbd_defs.h. > > Was there an rpc_version elsewhere I forgot to bump? Here's the patch > again > > (note it's slightly different than the patch I originally sent against > 2.2): > > > > > http://userpages.umbc.edu/~aaronk/slurm/patches/qos_per_user_node_cpu_limits_slurm23.patch > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Auble, Danny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Aaron, I retract my last request. It was fairly easy to fix the > > > rpc_version issues. I’ll get this into the code base. > > > > > > > > > > > > Danny > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Auble, Danny > > > *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2011 1:58 PM > > > > > > *To:* '[email protected]' > > > *Subject:* RE: [slurm-dev] per-user node/cpu limits for QOS's > > > > > > > > > > > > Aaron, I don’t know if you missed this or not, but the rpc_version for > 2.3 > > > has already been upped to 9. Could you rework this patch again to not > bump > > > it up to 10? > > > > > > > > > > > > In slurmdbd_defs.h > > > > > > > > > > > > #define SLURMDBD_VERSION 9 /* already changed for 2.3 */ > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Danny > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > > > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Knister > > > *Sent:* Sunday, June 12, 2011 4:34 PM > > > > > > *To:* [email protected] > > > *Subject:* Re: [slurm-dev] per-user node/cpu limits for QOS's > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Danny, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. I got started on the patch to 2.3 but then had my > > > attention diverted by a severe power outage at work ( > > > > http://arbutus.patch.com/articles/transformer-explosion-knocks-umbc-power > > > ). > > > > > > > > > > > > I finally had a chance to finish the patch against 2.3-- It was pretty > > > straightforward. Here's the link: > > > > http://userpages.umbc.edu/~aaronk/slurm/patches/qos_per_user_node_cpu_limits_slurm23.patch > > > > > > I made some slight changes from the original patch to 2.2 including > > > changing the sacctmgr parameters from MaxUser(Node|CPU)s to > > > Max(Node|Cpu)sPerUser and updating the man pages. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Auble, Danny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hey Aaron, sorry for the mistake there. It appears I was looking at > the > > > wrong structure in slurmdb.h (My mistake). Yes, what you did appears > to be > > > the correct way of doing it. I am not sure how I got things mistaken, > > > thanks for pointing it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for working on the 2.3 patch, it probably isn’t that bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > Danny > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > > > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Knister > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:19 PM > > > *To:* [email protected] > > > *Subject:* Re: [slurm-dev] per-user node/cpu limits for QOS's > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
