On Monday, 10/27/2008 at 11:37 EDT, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point was to find a way to make use of them that might open the way > to making them useful to VM work. It would obviously require IBM to > permit them to be used by non-z/OS workload if it were to happen. Ah. OK. Their purpose is to offload cycles from MSU-based processors in order to reduce software costs. But since OTC software doesn't charge based on MSUs, but on the number of processors, there is no software or hardware cost savings to be had. > To use most existing CMS services, you run into the fact that most of > them are not MP-friendly, and some still need a master processor (rare > but still present, as Dennis found out recently). This pretty much makes > using existing bits of CMS not very helpful for a truly multitasking > environment (thus the comment about having to reimplement a lot of > stuff). Gotcha. Terminology strikes again. :-) In z/VM, the term "master processor" is usually used to refer to CP services (e.g. spool) that queue tasks only on the master (system IPL) processor in order to perform serialization rather than using locks. We usually refer to the "base processor" of a guest to alleviate (ha!) confusion. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
