14.03.05?

On July 29, 2014 8:41:25 AM PDT, Bill Wichser <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Version currently demonstrating this is: 14.03
>
>Bill
>
>On 07/25/2014 09:44 PM, Danny Auble wrote:
>> What version are you using?
>>
>> On July 25, 2014 5:12:22 PM PDT, Bill Wichser <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Thanks.  I knew that with our implementation of PBS it was always
>this
>>     way.  But there was no indication from Slurm docs that the lower
>7 bits
>>     (-128) also applied for slurm.
>>
>>     My exit codes from sacct are always 137:0 and 139:0 from these
>jobs.
>>
>>     Bill
>>
>>     On 7/25/2014 6:22 PM, Danny Auble wrote:
>>
>>
>>         Paul is correct,
>>
>>         Before 14.03.5 Slurm didn't obey POSIX convention but now
>does.
>>
>>         Basically if the job was signaled in some fashion the exit
>code is
>>         increased by 128 to show this is the case.
>>
>>         As an example on the command line, if I do a simple sleep and
>>         ctrl-C
>>         it the exit code would be 130
>>
>>         sleep 1000
>>         ^C
>>         echo $?
>>         130
>>
>>         Before 14.03.5 srun wouldn't return just 15 in this case but
>we
>>         wanted
>>         to be POSIX c! ompliant so we modified it to increase the
>>         exit_code as
>>         it should to be compliant.
>>
>>         What does sacct tell you on the jobs? For the exit code of
>137 I
>>         would expect you would get a ExitCode of 0:9 meaning you had
>an
>>         exit
>>         code of 0 but it was signaled with a SIGKILL. For the 139 I
>would
>>         expect a 0:11 meaning a Seg Fault happened just as Paul said.
>>
>>         Danny
>>
>>         On 07/25/2014 03:06 PM, Bill Wichser wrote:
>>
>>
>>              From the documentation there is no clear explanation
>which
>>             I find
>>             explaining the exit codes of jobs. I have a user
>>             experiencing exit
>>             codes of 137 and 139. Can anyone help me to locate what
>this
>>             8 bit
>>             unsigned integer references?
>>
>>             Thanks,
>>             Bill
>>

Reply via email to