On 5/26/2016 10:29 AM, Jerry Callen wrote:
I wrote a simple test program to compare the performance of WAIT/POST and pause elements. The program has two tasks and simply ping-pongs back and forth between them (no overlapped execution). Each task has a synchronization gadget, either an ECB or a pause element. The tasks use each other's synchronization gadget to just transfer control back and forth between each other in a loop. This is a pretty unrealistic test (in terms of being like anything "real" code would do), but it does illustrate the relative performance of the two synchronization methods.
This is like comparing using a back-hoe to dig a hole to plant a flower vs using a trowel.
No one every said that Pause/Release was faster or consumed the same amount of CPU as WAIT/POST, or that they should be used as a universal replacement for WAIT/POST. They should be used where they provide value.
Pause/Release can be used in environments where WAIT/POST can not be used. They support being issued by SRBs. They support being issued in cross-memory mode. The processing does not have any special case paths for more simple cases. As such, they are not light-weight services.
WAIT/POST within a single address space is much more limited. Because of those limitations it is a light-weight service, and that is why you see the results that you see.
Greg ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
