feat: allow disjoint schedulers#714
Open
steved wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
steved
requested review from
Ronkahn21,
danbar2,
gflarity,
sanjaychatterjee,
shayasoolin and
unmarshall
as code owners
Contributor
|
Thanks @steved, I think its a bit early for PR. As @shayasoolin wrote on the Issue it a big architectural change that we would like to discuss in a session with the broader team |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Relax the current PodCliqueSet schedulerName validation that prevents creating PodCliques with different scheduler names. lpx-scheduler will only support scheduling of PodCliques for LPU workloads. GPU and other workloads will need to be scheduled with kai/default/etc.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #713
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a API change?
Additional documentation e.g., enhancement proposals, usage docs, etc.:
N/A