ruary 04, 2011 5:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: TIMEUSED versus TCBTTIME
On 5/02/2011 12:38 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
> @Kirk: I looked at it. I played a little with the in-line TRT to replace
an
> strchr() or similar. I did not see any performance improvement and backed
it
>
ore C talent than
assembler talent.)
@Chris: Interesting. Do you suppose the technique you describe is "cheaper"
than TIMEUSED with ECT?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Kirk Wolf
Sent: Friday, February 04,
Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 2/4/2011 8:13 AM, Chris Craddock wrote:
All true and good sensible stuff too. For a quick and dirty (and fairly
light weight) way to coerce the system into updating it there's always
this
old trick...
WAIT ECB=PHONY
(do stuff)
On 2/4/2011 8:13 AM, Chris Craddock wrote:
All true and good sensible stuff too. For a quick and dirty (and fairly
light weight) way to coerce the system into updating it there's always this
old trick...
WAIT ECB=PHONY
(do stuff)
DS 0F
PHONY DC X'4000
On 2/4/2011 1:52 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
I may be thinking of a private "better" WAIT Macro
You must be.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-338-0400 x318
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
---
At 10:13 -0600 on 02/04/2011, Chris Craddock wrote about Re: TIMEUSED
versus TCBTTIME:
All true and good sensible stuff too. For a quick and dirty (and fairly
light weight) way to coerce the system into updating it there's always this
old trick...
WAIT ECB=PHONY
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:38:12 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>My granularity is CPU time used over hours spent 99% in a wait state.
>
>@Chris: Interesting. Do you suppose the technique you describe is "cheaper"
>than TIMEUSED with ECT?
Maybe the TCBTTIME as of the last time you were dispatched is suff
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
>
> @Chris: Interesting. Do you suppose the technique you describe is "cheaper"
> than TIMEUSED with ECT?
Hard to tell without benchmarking it and I wouldn't offer a
prediction. *HOWEVER* if you are of a mind to sample relevant fields from
v
SED with ECT?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Kirk Wolf
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 8:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: TIMEUSED versus TCBTTIME
Charles,
Related to your comment: have you l
Charles,
Related to your comment: have you looked at the new assembler gcc-style
inlining in xlc on z/OS?
I'm starting to have some fun with it; in some cases it eliminates the need
for Metal-C and in many it can replace writing XPLINK assembler leaf
routines.
Kirk Wolf
Dovetailed Technologies
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Rob Scott wrote:
> TCBTTIME is *not* updated when task is actually dispatched and executing on
> a CPU, only when it gets interrupted by something like WAIT.
>
> TCBTTIME will not include any "fancy" CPU stats either (Enclave SRB, zIIP
> and zAAP).
>
> Also, I do n
w.rocketsoftware.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Charles Mills
Sent: 04 February 2011 14:53
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: TIMEUSED versus TCBTTIME
The discussion of the ECT parameter of TIMEUSED on the thread "S
The discussion of the ECT parameter of TIMEUSED on the thread "STCK vs
TIMUSED" got me to wondering. I am currently using TCBTTIME in a product
rather than TIMEUSED. The advantages of TCBTTIME as I see it are (1) has to
be very low overhead and (2) I can do it directly in C without linking to
assem
13 matches
Mail list logo
