Patents are tricky to read. The Abstract is semi-meaningless. Only the "claims" really matter, and they are tricky to read also.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Neil Duffee Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 11:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: SMT vs. chargeback [was: Does everybody use chargeback?] The U of Zero (*grin*) hasn't charged back for more than 2.5 decades. I still saw account numbers in job cards when I started back then but expect it was hold-over from the card/batch-only days and habit from the lifers that ran the system. Given our expected un-plug in the next year, the PTB are not likely to entertain the notion either. I do recall, as a student, that my CMS account had a monthly limit (5 CPU minutes?) but I joined the (priviledged) HelpDesk crowd and could compute to my heart's content. [pause] I see that IBM was granted a patent for this very subject last October. Reading only the abstract, it might be difficult to shoehorn zIIPs into the process since, " The logical core is run on the single physical core on an exclusive basis for a period of time, such that the logical threads of the logical core execute on physical threads of the single physical core." That text would seem to preclude processor switches or remove the true concept of multi-threading. (If all my threads have to run on a single CP, don't I become singly threaded?) Like I said, I didn't read (much) below the abstract. Interesting topic. http://www.google.com/patents/US20150277984 Publication number US20150277984 A1 Publication type Application Application number US 14/231,794 Publication date Oct 1, 2015 Filing date Apr 1, 2014 Priority date Apr 1, 2014 [snip] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
