IBM Data and AI Ideas Portal for Customers

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Post your ideas

Post ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,

  1. Post an idea

  2. Upvote ideas that matter most to you

  3. Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea

Help IBM prioritize your ideas and requests

The IBM team may need your help to refine the ideas so they may ask for more information or feedback. The product management team will then decide if they can begin working on your idea. If they can start during the next development cycle, they will put the idea on the priority list. Each team at IBM works on a different schedule, where some ideas can be implemented right away, others may be placed on a different schedule.

Receive notification on the decision

Some ideas can be implemented at IBM, while others may not fit within the development plans for the product. In either case, the team will let you know as soon as possible. In some cases, we may be able to find alternatives for ideas which cannot be implemented in a reasonable time.

Additional Information

To view our roadmaps:

Reminder: This is not the place to submit defects or support needs, please use normal support channel for these cases

IBM Employees:

The correct URL for entering your ideas is:

Status Future consideration
Workspace Spectrum LSF
Components Scheduling
Created by Guest
Created on Nov 1, 2021

When submitting a job to a CGROUPv2 Compatible System Modify cpu.shares based upon the task count requested by the job

LSF would support CGROUPv2 better, if it adjusted the number of CPU shares for a job based upon the number of cpus/tasks requested by the job.
Needed By Quarter
  • Guest
    Dec 6, 2021

    The whole issue with cpu.shares and affinity is that they don't mix well. If your shop is doing cgroup v2 exclusively on a host and no cpu binding/masks, then cpu.shares works perfectly. If however, you are using cpu binding/masks, then cpu.shares does not make sense. I think it should be one or the other, but not both at the same time, and I agree, for interactive workload/queues, that's a great idea to recommend using shares only. IMHO, a shop is either 100% affinity, like a classic HPC shop, or 100% non-affinity using cpu.shares. When you mix affinity and non-affinity jobs on the same host, I'm not sure that the OS will prioritize workload away from the bound cpus, it litterally limits the jobs inside the cgroup to them, but does not block other pids in the system mask from using them.

    The real question is how do we express this properly in the LSF configuration. If you say that you want cpu.shares for interactive only, then your hosts would have to not overlap. If you say you want to use affinity only, then you should provide some warning that cpu.shares will be ignored. It's tricky business, and I've not given the idea as to how to express the configuration fully.

  • Admin
    Bill McMillan
    Nov 2, 2021

    As previously discussed, the way this is implemented in the kernel would mean that it would need to be an explicit choice at the node level whether a node allowed affinity/binding or cpu shares. The latter may be good for interactive work, but applications that benefit from affinity would suffer.