Re: Multi SRB

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Peter Relson wrote: > > For example, a STIMER REAL request expires. I.e. a "timer pops", which is > set to drive some user code in the application. The STIMER has created an > IRB. The timer pop has already saved the status of the running

Re: Multi SRB

For example, a STIMER REAL request expires. I.e. a "timer pops", which is set to drive some user code in the application. The STIMER has created an IRB. The timer pop has already saved the status of the running program in the RB, so the "pop code" uses the SCHEDIRB macro to schedule the IRB.

Re: Multi SRB

At some zOS level the ability to add an IRB in the middle of the RB chain was added. On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:36:47 -0800 Ed Jaffe wrote: :>On 12/29/2016 11:01 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: :>> :>> I'd expect a "linkage stack" to operate LIFO ("stack", after all). Isn't

Re: Multi SRB

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Tom Marchant < 000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:17:30 -0600, John McKown wrote: > > >"The TCB is dispatched which causes z/OS to reload the regs & PSW > >from the values in the current RB, which pointed to by the

Re: Multi SRB

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:17:30 -0600, John McKown wrote: >"The TCB is dispatched which causes z/OS to reload the regs & PSW >from the values in the current RB, which pointed to by the TCBRBP field of >the TCB." Well, the PSW is loaded from the RBOPSW, but the registers are loaded from the TCB.

Re: Multi SRB

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Paul Gilmartin < 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:18:43 -0800, Ed Jaffe wrote: > > > >Windows -- like all operating systems -- has an RB chain equivalent. > > > >The big difference is the S/360 hardware did not have a

Re: Multi SRB

On 12/29/2016 11:01 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: I'd expect a "linkage stack" to operate LIFO ("stack", after all). Isn't the RB chain more flexible? I thought IRBs take priority over other RBs. Indeed. An IRB is added as the current entry and popped off in LIFO fashion when finished. --

Re: Multi SRB

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:18:43 -0800, Ed Jaffe wrote: > >Windows -- like all operating systems -- has an RB chain equivalent. > >The big difference is the S/360 hardware did not have a hardware stack >so the operating system implemented everything via software structures. >Thus, the RB chain was

Re: Multi SRB

On 12/29/2016 9:36 AM, Joseph Reichman wrote: That's a really good question in windows there is no concept of RB each program is a task thread Windows -- like all operating systems -- has an RB chain equivalent. The big difference is the S/360 hardware did not have a hardware stack so the

Re: Multi SRB

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:32 AM, scott Ford wrote: > Guys, > > Then if one was writing a multi-threaded C or C++ application in a MVS > address space is it considered TCBs for each thread ? > > Scott > > Assuming you are using the pthread_create() function to do threading,

Re: Multi SRB

ubject: Re: Multi SRB That's a really good question in windows there is no concept of RB each program is a task thread Seems like openmvs unix creates a new Address space what are all those Bpxas jobs running -- For IBM-MAIN

Re: Multi SRB

ssage- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Joseph Reichman Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 9:36 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Multi SRB That's a really good question in windows there is no concept of RB each program is a task thread S

Re: Multi SRB

16 9:32 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Multi SRB Guys, Then if one was writing a multi-threaded C or C++ application in a MVS address space is it considered TCBs for each thread ? Scott On Thursday, December 29, 2016, Peter Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >:&

Re: Multi SRB

That's a really good question in windows there is no concept of RB each program is a task thread Seems like openmvs unix creates a new Address space what are all those Bpxas jobs running Joe Reichman 8045 Newell St Apt 403 Silver Spring MD 20910 Home (240) 863-3965 Cell (917) 748 -9693

Re: Multi SRB

Guys, Then if one was writing a multi-threaded C or C++ application in a MVS address space is it considered TCBs for each thread ? Scott On Thursday, December 29, 2016, Peter Relson wrote: > >:>>can there be multiple SRB's executing > >:>>the same piece code in the same

Re: Multi SRB

>:>>can there be multiple SRB's executing >:>>the same piece code in the same address space >... >SRBs go to addresses and they do not care about the attributes of the code. >CALL doesn't care either. Binyamin is of course correct. It is entirely up to the coder to make sure that the storage

Re: Multi SRB

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:33:58 -0600 Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: :>On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:13:33 -0500, Joe Reichman wrote: :>>Follow up question to my earlier post can there be multiple SRB's executing :>>the same piece code in the same address space

Re: Multi SRB

I'd prefer the term "orchestrator", but even that's not perfect. I guess I'm reacting to the time element of "scheduler" (but also its ambiguity). Cheers, Martin Sent from my iPad > On 28 Dec 2016, at 00:41, Tony Harminc wrote: > >> On 27 December 2016 at 16:32, Ed Jaffe

Re: Multi SRB

On 12/27/2016 4:40 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: It's arguable that address spaces are dispatchable. But that perhaps muddles the notions of dispatcher and scheduler (which these days is really WLM). Not arguable at all IMHO. Dispatchable units have WEB queue entries and address spaces don't have

Re: Multi SRB

On 27 December 2016 at 16:32, Ed Jaffe wrote: > On 12/27/2016 1:13 PM, Joe Reichman wrote: >> >> Follow up question to my earlier post can there be multiple SRB's >> executing the same piece code in the same address space > > Of course! There are two kinds of

Re: Multi SRB

t: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 1:14 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Multi SRB Hi Follow up question to my earlier post can there be multiple SRB's executing the same piece code in the same address space -- For IBM-MAIN

Re: Multi SRB

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:13:33 -0500, Joe Reichman wrote: > >Follow up question to my earlier post can there be multiple SRB's executing >the same piece code in the same address space > My guess would be yes, if the Program Object is marked REFR and loaded under different TCBs in the same address

Re: Multi SRB

On 12/27/2016 1:13 PM, Joe Reichman wrote: Follow up question to my earlier post can there be multiple SRB's executing the same piece code in the same address space Of course! There are two kinds of dispatchable units in MVS: TCBs and SRBs. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International,

Multi SRB

Hi Follow up question to my earlier post can there be multiple SRB's executing the same piece code in the same address space -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to