Obviously hardware serialization is faster than software serialization, as the software serialization eventually has to use hardware serialization.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:22:44 +0000 Seymour J Metz <sme...@gmu.edu> wrote: :>Sorry, but I interpreted your comments about the expense of serialization as implying avoiding CDS. :> :>-- :>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz :>http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 :>??? ?????????? ??? :>?????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? :> :> :> :>________________________________________ :>From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> on behalf of Peter Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com> :>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 8:14 AM :>To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU :>Subject: : Re: SETLOCK OBTAIN CML/CMS :> :>External Message: Use Caution :> :> :>Shmuel wrote :><snip> :> :>Is CDS that expensive? I had assume that grabbing and emptying the queue would be extremely low overhead, absent insane arrival rates. :> :></snip> :> :> :> :>It is not overly relevant if CDS or CS is expensive regardless of arrival rates because any other approach would be far slower. :> :> :> :>Not every use case can be covered with CDS(G) and/or CS(G) but, for those that can be, anyone with performance concerns would use them. :> :>The implementation would not be as simple as ENQ/DEQ but is not all that complex. :> :>Peter Relson :>z/OS Core Technology Design -- Binyamin Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
