Wow! Man do I stand corrected!

Sounds like an MVC loop is well worth the bother in anything where
performance *truly* matters.

Charles

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Andy Coburn
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What is the current feeling for MVC loop vs. MVCL?

The following is a snip from a program which I just ran on our Z10 whose
characteristics are shown last below. The program first moved 65536 bytes
from one location to another using MVCL and did this 1 million times. You'll
see it took ~56 seconds. Then the same number of bytes were moved using 1
million MVC loops. This took ~8 seconds. Finally, the same number of bytes
were moved 1 million times using MVCLE.

I have run this program on every CEC that I have had available to me and the
results are always relatively the same although the actual numbers change. 

MVCL has some extraordinarily useful functions: Truncation, padding and
returning addresses and lengths after MVCL. Each of these would have to be
done manually if a MVC loop were used and these instructions would have to
be added into the total time for MVC loops. And, yes, I wrote a MVCL macro.
But once one tries to support the case where bits 8 through 31 of  R1+1 and
R2+1 are not equal the macro gets very big and very awkward. And the 
R2+macro
would have to return the 4 registers with contents the same as MVCL would.

   


1 MILLION MVCL INSTRUCTIONS  IN SECONDS      55.961093
1 MILLION MVC LOOPS          IN SECONDS       8.389260
1 MILLION MVCLE INSTRUCTIONS IN SECONDS     115.548643


OPERATING SYSTEM= HBB7770SP7.1.2 HBB7770                                
CPU ID FROM STIDP: TYPE=2098 VERSION=00 SERIAL=00XXXX                   
EXECUTION ENVIRONMENT: LPAR=YES VM=NO                                   
CPU ID FROM STSI: MANUF=IBM TYPE=2098 MODEL=R03 SERIAL=00000000000XXXXX 
VERSION CODE FROM CONVERSION TABLE=                                     
ROLLING 4-HOUR AVERAGE UTILIZATION IS 23 MSUS                           
LPAR XXXX IS UNCAPPED IN A 89 MSU CEC                                   
ADJ FACTOR 1946 ACCUM WEIGHT 6385225 TIMES ACCUM 23219                  
LPAR_NAME=XXXX LPAR_ID=0003 LPAR_SIZE=89 CEC_SIZE=89 ARCH=Z/ARCHITECTURE

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Reply via email to