{subsubsection: Consumption Policies}
Consumption Policies address the limitations described above in the following ways.
-__ Fast resource allocation: When the HTCondor negotiator matches a job against a partitionable slot configured with a Consumption Policy, it will deduct the resource assets (cpu, memory, etc) from that p-slot and keep it in the list. Therefore, a p-slot can be matched against multiple jobs in the same negotiation cycle. This allows p-slots to be fully loaded in a single cycle, instead of matching a single job per cycle. Because this matching happens in the negotiator, it may also be referred to as "negotiator splitting"
+_Fast resource allocation:_ When the HTCondor negotiator matches a job against a partitionable slot configured with a Consumption Policy, it will deduct the resource assets (cpu, memory, etc) from that p-slot and keep it in the list. Therefore, a p-slot can be matched against multiple jobs in the same negotiation cycle. This allows p-slots to be fully loaded in a single cycle, instead of matching a single job per cycle. Because this matching happens in the negotiator, it may also be referred to as "negotiator splitting"
-*Concurrency Limits:* The negotiator has access to all Concurrency Limit accounting, and so negotiator splitting via Consumption Policies works properly with all Concurrency Limits.
+_Concurrency Limits:_ The negotiator has access to all Concurrency Limit accounting, and so negotiator splitting via Consumption Policies works properly with all Concurrency Limits.
-*Multiple schedulers:* Because the negotiator has access to jobs from all schedulers, Consumption Policies allow a partitionable slot to service jobs from multiple schedulers in a single negotiation cycle.
+_Multiple schedulers:_ Because the negotiator has access to jobs from all schedulers, Consumption Policies allow a partitionable slot to service jobs from multiple schedulers in a single negotiation cycle.
-*Accounting Group Quotas:* The cost of matching a job against a slot is traditionally the value of the SlotWeight expression. In a scenario where the slot weights of available p-slots are greater than an accounting group's quota, the jobs in that accounting group will be starved. This kind of scenario becomes increasingly likely in a fine-grained accounting group configuration involving many smaller quotas, or when machines with larger amounts of resources and correspondingly large slot weights are in play.
+_Accounting Group Quotas:_ The cost of matching a job against a slot is traditionally the value of the SlotWeight expression. In a scenario where the slot weights of available p-slots are greater than an accounting group's quota, the jobs in that accounting group will be starved. This kind of scenario becomes increasingly likely in a fine-grained accounting group configuration involving many smaller quotas, or when machines with larger amounts of resources and correspondingly large slot weights are in play.
When a p-slot with a Consumption Policy is matched then its match-cost is the _change_ in the SlotWeight value, from before the match to after. This means that a match is _only charged for the portion of the p-slot that it actually used_ (as measured by the SlotWeight expression), and so p-slots with large SlotWeight values can generally be used by accounting groups with smaller quotas (and likewise by submitters having smaller fairshare values).
