On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:25:27 -0700, Mike Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w rote:
... > >An alternative - which might even satisfy Mr. Schuh - could be to restri ct >"detachable" memory to that which has been dynamically added after CP wa s >iplled. I wouldn't think the SXS would extend into such, which would ma ke >it easier to clear. Of course it's been a while since I did much perusi ng >of CP internals... >--Mike >======================== ========================= ======================== Yes, that simplifies it somewhat, wouldn't require pre-definition of the detachable range, but it still means rewriting pretty much all of storage allocation to know certain areas are restricted and need to be managed separately, and all allocation logic would need to be additionally multi-pathed based on request type. Not a trivial undertaking by any mea ns, but feasible enough, I suppose, if enough customers were to ask for it to be made a priority over other functions already being requested. - Bill Holder, z/VM Development, IBM
