You would not use pause/release for its individual-call performance characteristics, but for other things.
For example, pause/release is not subject to the cross-memory post case where the interface's being an "ASCB address" leaves things subject to question if the target terminates and then a new space gets that same ASCB address (hence, see the IEAMSXMP macro, where that service wrapper basically schedules an SRB to do a non-XM post, after having validated the target, since that service utilizes an stoken/ttoken rather than ASCB address for identification). Also, pause/release does not use the local lock, so it could help avoid local lock contention which can significantly degrade performance. But it is surely true that (with enough concurrent use) pause/release could run into its own lock contention problems on the lock(s) that it does use. It is certainly true that wait/post will be around for the life of the operating system, regardless of what other options are provided. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
