Shane ibm-m...@tpg.com.au wrote in message
news:20111220123112.2a437a52@xpfs...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:20:16 -0500 Tom Russell wrote:
PR/SM dispatches Logical CPs not Logical Partitions.
I wonder if it'd be considered churlish to point out this wasn't
always
the case.
Shane ...
Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Vernooij, CP - SPLXM
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 2:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Question on PR/SM dispatcher
Shane ibm-m
In
ce3ffbb7e42033469ef752a1d8a19ba1eef...@kl1221tc.cs.ad.klmcorp.net,
on 12/19/2011
at 09:29 AM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM kees.verno...@klm.com said:
You don't have to wait for it, you can also force it. Amdahl's MDF
did it. The main difference was that PR/SM is interrupt driven and
MDF was
Are you serious?
Kees.
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J. shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote in
message news:20111220144901.d5dcaf58...@smtp.patriot.net...
In
ce3ffbb7e42033469ef752a1d8a19ba1eef...@kl1221tc.cs.ad.klmcorp.net,
on 12/19/2011
at 09:29 AM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM kees.verno...@klm.com
/MartinPacker
From:
McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
To:
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu,
Date:
20/12/2011 13:10
Subject:
Re: Question on PR/SM dispatcher
Sent by:
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
A churl is a very old word for a peasant or free man. But became to
be used for someone
In
ce3ffbb7e42033469ef752a1d8a19ba1eef...@kl1221tc.cs.ad.klmcorp.net,
on 12/20/2011
at 04:15 PM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM kees.verno...@klm.com said:
Are you serious?
Certainly. If I recall correctly, MDF was implemented in what Amdahl
called macrocode, not by dedicated hardware. So what
Of course, but I suppose you know what I meant: PR/SM sits waiting for
an LPAR to produce an interrupt and decides then what to do next. MDF
determines that it wants to take action after a certain timeslice,
whether the domains like it or not.
The fact that the end of the timeslice might be
shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.) writes:
Certainly. If I recall correctly, MDF was implemented in what Amdahl
called macrocode, not by dedicated hardware. So what triggered the
redispatch at the end of a time slice if not an external interrupt?
the guys doing MDF use to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:14:36 -0500, Shmuel Metz wrote:
How did MDF detect the end of a timeslice if not by an interrupt?
That is how it detected the end of a time slice. Early MDF code
would dispatch a different domain as soon as a processor entered
a wait state. That was determined to cause
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:33:14 -0500, Shmuel Metz wrote:
If I recall correctly, MDF was implemented in what Amdahl
called macrocode,
That's correct. Very similar to the millicode on current IBM
mainframes. A superset of 370 instructions that ran in
system state.
not by dedicated hardware.
Shane ibm-m...@tpg.com.au wrote in message
news:20111220123112.2a437a52@xpfs...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:20:16 -0500 Tom Russell wrote:
PR/SM dispatches Logical CPs not Logical Partitions.
SNIPPAGE
- I am quite sure that pr/sm always dispatched Logical CPs and Amdahls
MDF dispatched entire
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:19:35 +0100, Vernooij, CP wrote:
I am quite sure that pr/sm always dispatched Logical CPs and Amdahls
MDF dispatched entire domains (their word for lpar).
If by dispatched entire domains you mean that all of the
logical processors for a domain were always dispatched
In
ce3ffbb7e42033469ef752a1d8a19ba1eef...@kl1221tc.cs.ad.klmcorp.net,
on 12/20/2011
at 04:53 PM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM kees.verno...@klm.com said:
Of course, but I suppose you know what I meant:
You're welcome to suppose what you wish. Just don't be surprised when
your suppositions are wrong
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J. shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote in
message news:20111220170650.bceecf58...@smtp.patriot.net...
In
ce3ffbb7e42033469ef752a1d8a19ba1eef...@kl1221tc.cs.ad.klmcorp.net,
on 12/20/2011
at 04:53 PM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM kees.verno...@klm.com said:
Of course, but I
Mauri Kanter itzuv...@013.net.il wrote in message
news:7558267718421282.wa.itzuviem013.net...@bama.ua.edu...
Thank you Jim. Crystal Clear.
Mauri,
I was going to reply, that your view on pr/sm was incorrect: pr/sm does
not dispatch entire LPARs, but individual processors, if the LPAR's
weight
To dispatch entire LPARs would be waiting for 2n ducks to line up in a
row: An event with progressively high latency in the n1 case. Which is
one reason we don't do it, I guess. (The 2n ducks would be the n logicals
and n physicals.)
Martin
Martin Packer,
Mainframe Performance Consultant,
You don't have to wait for it, you can also force it. Amdahl's MDF did
it. The main difference was that PR/SM is interrupt driven and MDF was
timeslice driven. Therefor it did not have to wait for the ducks to line
up, but simply took an entire domain from the processors when its time
was up and
PR/SM dispatches Logical CPs not Logical Partitions.
So Question 1 and 2 get the same answer. Any given Logical partiton can
have some logical CPs ready to run, and pther logical CPs in the WAIT
state. The ready to run CP will be dispatched on a real CP when it is
the highest priority
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:20:16 -0500 Tom Russell wrote:
PR/SM dispatches Logical CPs not Logical Partitions.
I wonder if it'd be considered churlish to point out this wasn't always
the case.
Shane ...
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
Great questions. I have no idea of the answers, but will be very
interested to see them!
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Mauri Kanter itzuv...@013.net.il wrote:
Good day list
I would like to understand something that is not still clear to me regarding
PR/SM dispatching.
Just to be clear
Question 1
==
Does PR/SM dispatches an LPAR only when the number of physical
processors awaiting allows to dispatch all the logical processors
required for an LPAR simultaneously?
No.
For example suppose my machine has 3 physical CPUs, and with 3 lpars
defined as follows:
Thank you Jim. Crystal Clear.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
22 matches
Mail list logo
