Let me see if I understand correctly.
The FRR stack used to be saved only if a local lock, i.e.,
a lock without disablement, was held.
The FRR stack is now also saved if the PSANSS bit is on.
Add in or SRB mode to your conditions, then yes.
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:37:40 -0400 Peter Relson rel...@us.ibm.com wrote:
:My understanding was that the EUT bit in PSA was added because the FRR
:stack
:was not saved. Perhaps it was not saved in EUT mode and the bit caused
:even
:EUT's to have their FRR stack saved?
:You had mentioned in an
My understanding was that the EUT bit in PSA was added because the FRR
stack
was not saved. Perhaps it was not saved in EUT mode and the bit caused
even
EUT's to have their FRR stack saved?
You had mentioned in an earlier append that there was no (potential) CPU
switch if locked. Not true for
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:37:17 -0400 michealbutz michealb...@optonline.net
wrote:
:.1.. TCBRTM1E X'40' - RTM1 IS
:CURRENTLY PROCESSING
:EUT FRR'S FOR THIS
:
Question What if there is a CPU switch in the routine
being protected by the FRR
As Binyamin wrote, FRRs are processor-related. There is a stack. The
obvious inference is that if a work unit is undispatched the stack must be
saved. It is.
When the work unit is redispatched, whether on the
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:48:19 -0400 Peter Relson rel...@us.ibm.com wrote:
:Question What if there is a CPU switch in the routine
:being protected by the FRR
:As Binyamin wrote, FRRs are processor-related. There is a stack. The
:obvious inference is that if a work unit is undispatched the
.1.. TCBRTM1E X'40' - RTM1 IS
CURRENTLY PROCESSING
EUT FRR'S FOR THIS
TASK
If its enabled for I/O and
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of michealbutz
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 4:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Explanation of EUT/FRR
.1.. TCBRTM1E X'40' - RTM1
8 matches
Mail list logo
