[torqueusers] vmem and pvmem

David Singleton David.Singleton at anu.edu.au
Fri Feb 24 16:50:00 MST 2012


On 02/25/2012 09:00 AM, Martin Siegert wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:19:37AM +0100, "Mgr. Šimon Tóth" wrote:
>>> Core_req       vmem  pvmem ulimit-v RPT
>>> =========================================
>>> nodes=1:ppn=2  1gb   256mb 256mb    512mb
>>> procs=2        1gb   256mb 256mb    1gb
>>> nodes=1:ppn=2  1gb   4gb   1gb      4gb
>>> procs=2        1gb   4gb   1gb      4gb
>>> nodes=1:ppn=2  1gb   -     1gb      512mb
>>> procs=2        1gb   -     1gb      1gb
>>>
>>> So the ulimit value that influences whether a task can allocate
>>> memory, is set as the lower of the vmem and pvmem values. That
>>> makes some sense - at least more sense than taking the larger
>>> value.  What doesn't make sense is allowing pvmem to be higher
>>> than vmem in the first place - in that case torque should probably
>>> reject the job or 'fix' one of the settings but leaving it as is
>>> might not be so bad, except for moab's behaviour (keep reading).
>>
>> No. The logic is as follows:
>>
>> * if pvmem (or pmem) is set
>>     then set the corresponding ulimit to pvmem (pmem) value
>>
>> * if pvmem (or pmem) isn't set
>>     then set the corresponding ulimit to vmem (mem) value
>>
>> Note that using pvmem is mostly pointless. On Linux this represents
>> address space, not virtual memory.
>>
>> You can use vmem as virtual memory, but even that is extremely confusing.
>
> I do not understand this comment. Both pvmem and vmem requests will
> result in RLIMIT_AS getting set.

I disagree with vmem setting RLIMIT_AS if that is what is happening.

> When I submit a MPI job using, e.g., procs=N, why is requesting
> pvmem=X mostly pointless? Shouldn't it be totally equivalent to
> requesting vmem=X*N ?
>

I think we have had the discussion of what procs means on a number of
occasions (look for the thread "processes vs processors").  I believe "procs"
(now) means (virtual) processORs (most commonly, they are cores).  They are not
processes.  [In OpenPBS they were processes and only the UNICOS MOM supported
that limit.  At least in torque-3.0.2 procs is still not properly documented
in pbs_resources* man pages.]

pvmem sets some sort of memory limit per *process* so vmem should have nothing
to do with procs and pvmem.  pvmem and vmem are pretty much orthogonal. One is
a voluntary limit the user places on their job processes (useless for actual
resource scheduling) and the other is something any well-configured system
should require a user to specify so that the resources of the system can be
managed.  In particular a job with only a pvmem limit can OOM any size node
simply by spawning enough processes.

Setting both independently (should a user choose to do so) seems perfectly
sensible.  But I agree with Gareth that it only makes sense to request
vmem.  Now what vmem actually is and how is should be evaluated and limited is
a whole other discussion ...

David


More information about the torqueusers mailing list