[slurm-users] Strange memory limit behavior with --mem-per-gpu
raines at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Fri Apr 8 12:48:25 UTC 2022
Sorry, should have stated that before. I am running Slurm 20.11.3
on CentOS 8 Stream that I compiled myself back in June 2021.
I will try to arrange an upgrade in the next few weeks.
-- Paul Raines (http://help.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu)
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 4:02am, Bjørn-Helge Mevik wrote:
> Paul Raines <raines at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> writes:
>> Basically, it appears using --mem-per-gpu instead of just --mem gives
>> you unlimited memory for your job.
>> $ srun --account=sysadm -p rtx8000 -N 1 --time=1-10:00:00
>> --ntasks-per-node=1 --cpus-per-task=1 --gpus=1 --mem-per-gpu=8G
>> --mail-type=FAIL --pty /bin/bash
>> rtx-07:~$ find /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/ -name job_$SLURM_JOBID
>> rtx-07:~$ cat /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/slurm/uid_5829/job_1134067/memory.limit_in_bytes
>> That is a limit of 1.5TB which is all the memory on rtx-07, not
>> the 8G I effectively asked for at 1 GPU and 8G per GPU.
> Which version of Slurm is this? We noticed a behaviour similar to this
> on Slurm 20.11.8, but when we tested it on 21.08.1, we couldn't
> reproduce it. (We also noticed an issue with --gpus-per-task that
> appears to have been fixed in 21.08.)
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Mass General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline <https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted). If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately. Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail.
More information about the slurm-users