SCHED_ULE should not be the default

[Adrian Chadd]

On 23 December 2011 11:11, Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:

> Ah, so goods news!  I cannot reproduce this problem that
> I saw 3+ years ago on the 4-cpu node, which is currently
> running a ULE kernel.  When I killed the (N+1)th job,
> the N remaining jobs are spread across the N cpus.

Ah, good.

> One difference between the 2008 tests and today tests is
> the number of available cpus.  In 2008, I ran the tests
> on a node with 8 cpus, while today's test used only a
> node with only 4 cpus.  If this behavior is a scaling
> issue, I can't currently test it.  But, today's tests
> are certainly encouraging.

Do you not have access to anything with 8 CPUs in it? It'd be nice to
get clarification that this indeed was fixed.

Does ULE care (much) if the nodes are hyperthreading or real cores?
Would that play a part in what it tries to schedule/spread?


Adrian