Re: [HTCondor-devel] cpu affinity and partitionable slots

[Brian Bockelman <bbockelm@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 9, 2012, at 11:49 PM, Dan Bradley <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> I was thinking about the lack of support in Condor for setting cpu affinity with partitionable slots in a useful way.  We do this on our non-partitionable slots to avoid the inevitable accidents where jobs try to use the whole machine from a single-core slot.  We'd like to be able to do it on the partitionable slots.
> 
> My first question is whether cpu shares in cgroups make the above use-case of cpu affinity obsolete.

Hi Dan,

Yeah, it's pretty fun watching users try to do this at our cluster.  They don't get particularly far, but they at least soak up any extra idle CPU cycles on the node.

> 
> If not, then it would be really nice to have cpu affinity working in the partitionable slot world.  The problem is that all dynamic slots under a single partitionable slot get assigned to the same set of cpus.  It seems to me that the startd needs to manage the partitioning of the cpu set when it creates the dynamic slots.
> 
> Are there plans for generic support for this sort of non-fungible resource partitioning?  Implementing this specific case does not sound very hard, as long as we (at least initially) just use a first-fit strategy and do not worry about optimizing which cores go best together in case of multi-core jobs.  I think it could even be done without adding any new configuration knobs (gasp).
> 

How are you going to assign CPU sets?  The traditional syscall route or the cgroup route?  It strikes me that, if you go the cgroup route, you actually could repack processes on different cores later to optimize topology.

In the end, because we don't optimize core topology, I don't particularly think it is any better than using cgroups (in fact, slightly worse because you may hold cores unnecessarily idle, nor can you oversubscribe a node).  I guess it's something for people without cgroups?

How does this interact with cgroups?  Right now, we have:

MEMORY_LIMIT=[soft|hard|none]

for the policy of what to do when the job goes over the memory limit.  Maybe we also have:

CPU_LIMIT=[soft|hard|none]

?

Brian

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature