AW: Re: Does >4K PGFIX make sure the frames are contiguous? (was: diagnose 8 / interesting dilemma)

> Data chaining was the original solution to this problem. It was probably a bad idea to mention I/O in my post (I know about data chainging and IDAW). I was thinking more about the possible need to have more than 4k of contiguous real storage. Like Tony mentioned, new interfaces such as

Re: Does >4K PGFIX make sure the frames are contiguous? (was: diagnose 8 / interesting dilemma)

Data chaining was the original solution to this problem. On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:27:56 +0200 Peter Hunkeler wrote: :> :>Below discussion triggered a question I could not answer by RTFM. I had never thought about this before in this detail, but now that I do, I wonder if the

Re: Does >4K PGFIX make sure the frames are contiguous? (was: diagnose 8 / interesting dilemma)

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:34:10 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote: > >If you want to do I/O to your real storage, that is what IDAWs are >for. Perhaps there are undocumented (or at least not publicly >documented) IBM facilities -- I'm guessing things like crypto, >compression, newer non traditional I/O --

Re: Does >4K PGFIX make sure the frames are contiguous? (was: diagnose 8 / interesting dilemma)

On 18 October 2016 at 18:27, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > Below discussion triggered a question I could not answer by RTFM. I had never > thought about this before in this detail, > but now that I do, I wonder if the following is correct. > > Program allocates >4k of virtual storage. The

Does >4K PGFIX make sure the frames are contiguous? (was: diagnose 8 / interesting dilemma)

Below discussion triggered a question I could not answer by RTFM. I had never thought about this before in this detail, but now that I do, I wonder if the following is correct. Program allocates >4k of virtual storage. The real frames backing it may or may not be contiguous. The program wants