Jim Mulder/Poughkeepsie/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/20/2006 10:16:21 PM: > IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on 09/20/2006 > 07:59:55 PM:
> As to why subpool 0 is shared, I haven't been able to think > of a reason. I don't know of anything that the initiator > obtains in subpool 0 that the jobstep task can free (unless there > was a time when programs would free the the EXEC PARM= > parameter storage after processing it), or anything that the jobstep > task would obtain from subpool 0 that needs to survive the termination > of the jobstep task. If subpool 0 was not shared, then the EXEC PARM= parameter storage would be the only thing in its 4K page (or its 2K page in the old days). The rest of the page would be wasted. Sharing subpool allows the jobsteb program to obtain the subpool 0 storage remaining on this page. Perhaps this was a consideration in the days of expensive, scarce storage. This is only a guess on my part. Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
