[email protected] (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
> It began nearly a half century ago with microcode implementation of S360
> models, and only slightly later, W. M. Waite's Mobile Programming System.
> Nowadays:
>
>     microcode->millicode->PR/SM->VM->JVM->byte code
>
> How many layers have I neglected?  Hercules is a confluent branch.

note that the original hypervisor was done by Amdahl in something called
macrocode ... which was a layer above microcode and very close to
standard 370.

In the mid-70s, I had been sucked in by Endicott to help with microcode
assists for 138/148 ... vertical microcode machine that avg. 10
microcode instructions per 370 instruction (not that different from the
various intel based simulators). Was told that there were 6kbytes
available for microcode and kernel instruction sequences dropped into
microcode on nearly byte for byte ... so was to identify the top 6kbytes
worth of kernel instruction sequences ... that would be moved to
microcode for a 10:1 performance improvement. Old post with results of
analysis ... turns out top 6kbytes of instruction sequences accounted
for 79.55percent of kernel time.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#21

In any case, I was giving presentations on the effort at the monthly bay
area user group meetings (BAYBUNCH) held at SLAC ... and the Amdahl
people were pumping me for additional details at the get togethers held
at local watering holes after the meetings (this was before hypervisor
was announced).

After hypervisor was announced ... the 3090 was eventually forced to
respond with PR/SM. Part of the issue was that 3090 was horizontal
microcode machine ... which was enormously more difficult to program for
than 370 instructions ... and was much more difficult.

I had been told that Amdahl had original evolved macrocode to respond to
the enormous number of architecture tweaks that IBM had been doing on
their "high-end" (vertical microcode machines) starting with the 3033
and continued through 3081 (macrocode used to drastically reduce the
effort needed to respond).

I've mentioned before ... during FS period ... internal politics were
killing off 370 efforts (the lack of 370 products during this period is
credited with giving clone processor makers a market foothold) ... then
when FS imploded there was mad rush to get 370 products back into
pipeline. POK kicked off 3033 (initially 168 logic remapped to 20%
faster chips) and 3081 in parallel ... more detailed account here:
http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm

since that neither 3033 or 3081 were really that competitive, the
architecture tweaks would supposedly give the machines competitive
advantage ... many were claimed to be performance improvements ... but
folklore is that many actually ran slower (than native 370). Part of the
issue is the high-end, horizontal microcode machines were profiled in
terms of avg. machine cycles per 370 instruction ... by 3033, this was
done to cloe to one machine cycle per 370 instruction (370 instruction
move to microcode couldn't see the 10:1 improvement seen on the vertical
microcode machines). In anycase, it sort of drove Amdahl into creating
macrocode as a way of drastically simplifying being able to respond to
the increased architecture tweaking.

The other factor was that part of the mad rush after FS failure, the
head of POK managed to convince corporate to kill off vm370, shutdown
the development group and move all the people to POK ...  or otherwise
POK would be able to make mvs/xa ship schedule several years (Endicott
managed to save the vm370 product mission, but had to reconstitute a
development group from scratch). Part of the POK activity was creating a
XA vritual machine VMTOOL (to support MVS/XA development) that was never
intended to be made available to customers.

After initial introduction of 370/xa and MVS/XA ... there was very slow
uptake ... customers continued to run 3081s in 370 mode with MVS (or
vm370). The decision then was to release the VMTOOL as the "migration
aid" ... allowing customers to run both MVS and MVS/XA concurrently on
the same machine as aid to migration. Amdahl solution was the hypervisor
which provided the same capability ... but much more efficiently.

IBM eventually responded with PR/SM on the 3090 ... but it was much
greater effort because it required being all done in native horizontal
microcode.

The POK(/Kingston) group then pushed very hard to have migration aid
morph into standard VM/XA product. The problem was that VMTOOL had only
been developed for MVS/XA development and lacked lots of function and
performance features (especially compared to vm370 of the period) and
was going to require lots of resources, effort and time to bring up to
compareable level of vm370. Somebody at an internal datacenter had made
the changes to vm370 to provide full function 370/XA support ...  which
would have been trivial to release. In the internal politics between POK
and Endicott, POK managed to prevail and the vm370 370/xa was shelved
(never to be heard of again) and the significant effort to bring VMTOOL
(migration aid) up to vm370 product level, was launched.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to