On 6/3/2016 5:59 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
I don't view that as saying anything about wait/post. It is simply saying
that transfer can be faster than pause plus release (i.e, not using
transfer).
With all due respect, most developers who read the following are led to
believe that the "new" Pause/Release/Transfer services are _more_
efficient than "legacy" alternatives:
<IBM Documentation>
Pause, Release, and Transfer (IEAVPSE, IEAVRLS, IEAVXFR, and IEA4PSE,
IEA4RLS, IEA4XFR for 64-bit addressing mode ) are callable services that
enable you to synchronize task or SRB processing with minimal overhead.
If you have, for example, an application that requires two tasks to trade
control back and forth, these services provide efficient transfers of
control.
</IBM Documentation>
That last sentence is especially misleading. It suggests the primary use
case is synchronizing two tasks (aka TCBs) in an "efficient" manner when
customer-written benchmarks suggest the tasks will be synchronized using
techniques that are probably less efficient than WAIT/POST. If those
benchmarks are wrong, please say so...
I really think the focus should be on the obvious advantages of using
PETs over ECBs and/or ease of coding in routines that might be executed
in either task or SRB mode. (We love not having to dual-path things.)
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
