IBM Data and AI Ideas Portal for Customers
This portal is to open public enhancement requests against products and services offered by the IBM Data & AI organization. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).
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:
Search existing ideas
Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,
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,
Post an idea
Upvote ideas that matter most to you
Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea
Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use
Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.
IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.
ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.
IBM Employees should enter Ideas at https://ideas.ibm.com
Available as build601691 and will be included in Service Pack 15
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.
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.