just curious. if you leave out the singleton, do you get the behavior as expected?
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:42 AM Jarno van der Kolk <jvand...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm still puzzled by the expected behaviour of the following: > $ sbatch --hold fakejob.sh > Submitted batch job 25909273 > $ sbatch --hold fakejob.sh > Submitted batch job 25909274 > $ sbatch --hold fakejob.sh > Submitted batch job 25909275 > $ scontrol update jobid=25909273 Dependency=singleton > $ scontrol update jobid=25909274 Dependency=singleton,after:25909275 > $ scontrol update jobid=25909275 Dependency=singleton,after:25909273 > $ scontrol release 25909273 25909274 25909275 > > I expected these to be executed as 25909273, 25909275, 25909274. However, it > seems that singletons are executed in order of submission so that this leads > to a circular dependency. That is, 25909274 depends on 25909275 due to > "after", and 25909275 depends on 25909274 due to "singleton" plus order of > submission. > > From the man page for sbatch, that wasn't really clear to me: > singleton > This job can begin execution after any previously > launched jobs sharing the same > job name and user have terminated. > > I'm somewhat interested in creating a patch for this, but before I can look > into this, I'll need to know what the expected behaviour is. > If "launched" means submitted to the queue and preserving order, then I > should focus on the circular dependency detection. > If "launched" means entered the running state without preserving order, then > I should focus on the dependency resolving. > > Any thoughts on this? > > Thanks, > Jarno > > Jarno van der Kolk, PhD Phys. > Analyste principal en informatique scientifique | Senior Scientific Computing > Specialist > Solutions TI | IT Solutions > Université d’Ottawa | University of Ottawa >
