On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:35:00 +1000, Andrew Rowley wrote: >> >Thanks. The Derived CPU is calculated as per the description towards the >bottom of the page here: > >https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.ieag200/rec30.htm > ... >I wonder whether the CPU time for the forks is bash specific, or whether >it is an unavoidable part of fork? Speculating on the original topic, >maybe setting up COW is expensive and a full copy of the address space >could even be significantly cheaper in CPU time? > I wonder whether nowadays more address spaces are created for batch job steps or for fork()? Of course, it's environment-sensitive. Which path should be optimized? Whenever I see the message BPXAS ON INTRDR it appears the batch path is optimized. I'm astonished and dismayed to think that fork() is realized (sometimes) by sending imaginary cards through an imaginary card reader. My more UNIX-oriented peers just snicker even to think that fork() might cause a message to the operator.
-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
