Thanks for the careful notes Peter. My initial interest here is for single-threaded batch applications. But the extension to multi-threaded ones obviously raises the issues you described.
Peter From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 10:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Nanosecond resolution timestamps for HLL's? It might be said that the notion of monotonicity with respect to clock values is not "valid" unless you are a single-threaded application or all your references are serialized across all the threads (such as by a step- or system- or systems-level ENQ depending on the characteristics). Otherwise you cannot possibly tell what is what because thread one might have captured clock value "n" and then gotten interrupted, and then thread two captured clock value "n+1" and then continued to completion, after which thread one was re-dispatched (with what is now an older time stamp than the one already captured). If these two threads were serialized by an ENQ against each other the above scenario would not happen because thread two would not have been able to get to the point of capturing its clock value. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
