Do you have an example of how to do it? It doesn't appear to be so simple
-----Mensagem original----- De: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> Em nome de Binyamin Dissen Enviada em: segunda-feira, 9 de dezembro de 2024 14:28 Para: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Assunto: Re: RES: RES: SETLOCK OBTAIN CML/CMS If you have a queue with multiple feeders/eaters the pointer word is not enough for integrity. You need a monotonic increasing sequence number which you can play with CDS. Once you get to multiple eaters with FIFO you need even more sequencing. PLO and the transaction instructions allow that. On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:47:57 -0300 João Reginato <jb.regin...@gmail.com> wrote: :>Ok, then re-thinking it. :>I just want the simplest way to do it and fewer CPU consumption :> :> :>-----Mensagem original----- :>De: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> Em nome :>de Peter Relson :>Enviada em: segunda-feira, 9 de dezembro de 2024 11:23 :>Para: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU :>Assunto: RES: RES: SETLOCK OBTAIN CML/CMS :> :><snip> :> :>I'm just adding an STAE recovery rtn in case of an abend leave the word busy :></snip> :> :>If you have a "word" that can be left "busy" then your design ought to be :>re-thought. :>Your use of that phrase would usually indicate that one work unit is setting :>a word "busy" and other work units, seeing that the word is "busy" either :>wait or (worse) spin until the word is "not busy". :>"Wait" leads to a design that is not responsive; "spin" can lead to deadlock :>(in particular when on an image with only a single CPU, if the "holder" :>might be lower priority than the "requestor"). :> :>The approach mentioned by Jonathan Scott is one that is used in many cases :>within z/OS. :> :>Peter Relson :>z/OS Core Technology Design -- Binyamin Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
