Its been a while , but I suspect that WTO causes the CMS machine to become
ineligible for dispatch. Have you tried using a CMS I/O macro....

Dave Wade G4UGM
Illegitimi Non Carborundum



> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis
> Sent: 10 July 2008 23:14
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: CMS Multi-tasking - How is it different from z/OS 
> task management
> 
> 
> We are attempting to leverage z/VM CMS multi-tasking 
> capabilities for Windows® thread management.
> 
> We have substantial z/OS experience with regard to task 
> management and serialization so what we are experiencing in a 
> CMS environment doesn¹t fit what we had anticipated.
> 
> Our test was conducted on a virtual machine for which two 
> CPU¹s are defined. The test program contains CSECTS MAIN and 
> THREAD1. The program is invoked
> under CMS.         
> 
> CSECT MAIN process
> 
> 1. Initialization 
> 
> 2. Call VM thread create (referencing THREAD1 CSECT) from 
> within MAIN CSECT in order to create THREAD1 process in a 
> different class (new-Class specified on thread create call).
> 
> 3. Issue WTO repeatedly
> 
> THREAD1 CSECT process
> 
> 1. Initialization
> 2. Issue WTO repeatedly
> 
> What we expected:  Interspersed WTO's from both MAIN and 
> THREAD1 threads
> 
> What we get: THREAD1 WTOs only. We thought MAIN, being in a 
> separate class (and therefore eligible to be assigned to 
> different CPUs) would dispatch (and both issue WTOs) but this 
> did not happen.  In z/OS the fact that the WTO was issued 
> would provide sufficient dispatch latency for another task to 
> get a time slice.
> 
> Additional observations:
> 
> 1. If line write is substituted for WTO in MAIN and THREAD1 
> there is no observed difference.
> 
> 2. The program works as expected IF yield is called within 
> the WTO loops in MAIN and THREAD1.
> 
> Why should yield have to be called?  Any thread wizards out there?
> 
> 
> --.  .-  .-.  -.--
> 
> Gary Dennis
> Mantissa Corporation

Reply via email to