The management of the CPU timer is completely in the realm of the dispatcher/scheduler. Therefore, using ECTG when you're not in an disabled state during the entire timing process will not produce the results you want. I have always used TIMEUSED to get CPU time. It's been many years since I've had a need for TIMEUSED and it has certainly changed. It appears ECTG was written to improve its performance.
Kenneth -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Verville Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:47 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: ECTG usage I'm trying to benchmark cputime (under CICS) with pieces of code I'm changing, ECTG before and ECTG after. I'm zeroing out operand 1 before the ECTG thus I get a negative value in GPR0(because ETCG subtracts the operand 1 with the timer value) after I'm doing a LCR of GPR0 to get the positive timer value. If the cputimer went negative during the test (timer interrupt), the second ECTG is higher than the 1st one and since I don't know the "refeed" value of the CPUTIMER, I can't tell how much cputime was spend. I know I could use CICS internal values or statistics) but since they made ECTG as non-privilege I figured I'd give it a try. So... I'm missing something in the concept (the refeed value and how many times the interrupt occured ?) Richard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
