My recollection is that catching '10'X and '11'X was only for ESPIE and
was intended for use by IBM. One plausible use that comes to mind is guard
pages for segmented stacks.
I don't think they had such things when those ESPIE options were made
available, although perhaps the concepts had be
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 12:24:40 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Don't want to beat this thing to death but FWIW I meant "ABEND" in the sense
>I hear it usually used: to abnormally end, to blow up, to go kaput. When
>someone says "payroll ABENDed last night" they typically in my experience
>don't mean it
riginal Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Peter Relson
Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2020 7:01 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
Let's posit that ABENDing on th
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
But what about the TP shortage?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 5:12 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@
But what about the TP shortage?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 5:12 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" AT
: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
Let's posit that ABENDing on the first such condition is not acceptable to
user
management.
That is a bad thing to posit. That is an insane design in the absence of
other information, unless by ABEND you also inc
Let's posit that ABENDing on the first such condition is not acceptable to
user
management.
That is a bad thing to posit. That is an insane design in the absence of
other information, unless by ABEND you also include "and the task
terminates" (and I am assuming you are including "program chec
th TP.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 8:12 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
O
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 23:54:58 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>If I expected a lot of bad data, I might use TP. But if I expected them to be
>rare, I'd probably set an (E)SPIE.
>
Performance?
Do the pertinent exceptions set testable condition codes with
maskable interrupts?
Anything but a cache faul
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Charles Mills [charl...@mcn.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 1:29 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
Let's say you were writing a report generator. You are processing data of
un
of Ed
Jaffe [edja...@phoenixsoftware.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 2:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
On 4/4/2020 10:29 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
> Let's say you were writing a report generator. You are
(does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
On 4/4/2020 10:29 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
> Let's say you were writing a report generator. You are processing data of
> unknown quality using field definitions generated by inexperienced
> programmers, and report programs wri
On 4/4/2020 10:29 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
Let's say you were writing a report generator. You are processing data of
unknown quality using field definitions generated by inexperienced
programmers, and report programs written by non-programmers. You might
expect a fair number of arithmetic operati
very arithmetic operation?
Or ... ?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Peter Relson
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 5:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd su
ESPIE beats everything. That's the point. If (a.) all you need to trap is
program checks; and (b.) you expect a bunch of them -- use ESPIE.
I'd say "If ...you expect a bunch of them" then make every effort to
redesign your application. Because "no program check" can be thought to
beat ESPIE
inframe Discussion List on
> behalf of Jim Mulder
> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 8:28 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
> These are my results from a benchmark I did 4 years ago:
> Testcases wh
ong)
ESTAEX (SNAPTRC)x'20' 52648.96 14,914.7
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 9:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESP
scussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
>Behalf Of Tom Marchant
>Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 8:10 AM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
>
>The data presented shows that FRR is a lot better th
mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 8:10 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
The data presented shows that FRR is a lot better than ESTAE(X).
Perhaps you overlooked the number of ite
02.83 14,914.7
>:>
>:>
>:>Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp.
>:>Poughkeepsie NY
>:>(845) 435-4741
>:>D10JHM1@PLPSC (MVS) JMULDER@S390VM (VM)
>:>
>:>> From: "Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw"
>:>> To: IBM-MAIN@LI
'102.83 14,914.7
:>
:>
:>Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp.
:>Poughkeepsie NY
:>(845) 435-4741
:>D10JHM1@PLPSC (MVS) JMULDER@S390VM (VM)
:>
:>> From: "Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw"
:>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
:>
On 2020-04-03 1:56 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote:
On 2020-04-02 11:03, David Crayford wrote:
In that case why does LE use ESPIE in condition handling?
An irreverent take would be that they enjoy obfuscating abends by
transforming program checks into U4xxx abends.
The ESPIE can be eliminated using T
IN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
> These are my results from a benchmark I did 4 years ago:
> Testcases which loop recovering/retrying from an
> operation exception.
> Using default system trace size - 1MB pe
27;102.83 14,914.7
Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp.
Poughkeepsie NY
(845) 435-4741
D10JHM1@PLPSC (MVS) JMULDER@S390VM (VM)
> From: "Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw"
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Date: 04/02/2020 08:13 PM
> Subject: Re
I meant to also mention that ESPIE requires an SRB
dispatch and and 2 TCB dispatches for each iteration,
so there is uncaptured dispatcher time to consider
when comparing performance.
Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp.
Poughkeepsie NY
>
> These are my results
iagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp.
Poughkeepsie NY
(845) 435-4741
D10JHM1@PLPSC (MVS) JMULDER@S390VM (VM)
> From: "Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw"
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Date: 04/02/2020 08:13 PM
> Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover"
PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
On 2020-04-02 11:03, David Crayford wrote:
> In that case why does LE use ESPIE in condition handling?
An irreverent take would be that they enjoy obfuscating abends by
transform
List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 3:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
As Peter seems to imply, ESPIE interrupts are apparently noticeably lower
overhead than ESTAE interrupts. If dat
, April 2, 2020 5:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
On 4/2/2020 1:56 PM, Gord Tomlin wrote:
> An irreverent take would be that they enjoy obfuscating abends by
> transforming program checks into U4xxx abends
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 17:28:05 -0400 Mike Shaw wrote:
:>On 4/2/2020 1:56 PM, Gord Tomlin wrote:
:>
:>> An irreverent take would be that they enjoy obfuscating abends by
:>> transforming program checks into U4xxx abends.
:>
:>Good one Gord. I always wondered why LE did that. It makes_no_sense to
ssage-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Gord Tomlin
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 12:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
On 2020-04-02 14:14, Charles Mills wrote
On 4/2/2020 1:56 PM, Gord Tomlin wrote:
An irreverent take would be that they enjoy obfuscating abends by
transforming program checks into U4xxx abends.
Good one Gord. I always wondered why LE did that. It makes_no_sense to me.
Mike Shaw
MVS/QuickRef Support Group
Chicago-Soft, Ltd
--
code.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Gord Tomlin
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 12:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
On 2
On 2020-04-02 14:14, Charles Mills wrote:
I had the same observation. Sending every condition through the same handler
was advantageous for me.
Same here.
You would want to keep the SPIE if program checks were expected: perhaps a
report generator where you anticipated that users might decl
.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Gord Tomlin
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 10:56 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
On 2020-04-
On 2020-04-02 11:03, David Crayford wrote:
In that case why does LE use ESPIE in condition handling?
An irreverent take would be that they enjoy obfuscating abends by
transforming program checks into U4xxx abends.
The ESPIE can be eliminated using TRAP=(ON,NOSPIE), and we have not seen
any
Because Peter didn't write LE?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of David Crayford
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 8:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover&quo
rsday, April 2, 2020 11:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ESPIE question (does ESPIE "cover" ATTACH'd sub-tasks)
In that case why does LE use ESPIE in condition handling?
> On 2 Apr 2020, at 9:53 pm, Peter Relson wrote:
>
> I'd say that no one should
In that case why does LE use ESPIE in condition handling?
> On 2 Apr 2020, at 9:53 pm, Peter Relson wrote:
>
> I'd say that no one should use ESPIE unless they have a valid performance
> reason to do so.
>
>
> And no clean way to percolate.
>
> As of z/OS 1.12 there is: you can set EPIEPER
I'd say that no one should use ESPIE unless they have a valid performance
reason to do so.
And no clean way to percolate.
As of z/OS 1.12 there is: you can set EPIEPERC
(E)STAI is the only recovery mechanism that comes to mind that applies to
other work unit(s).
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Tech
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
What advantage do you see in an ESPIE over an ESTAE?
IIRC, there are quite a few conditions where it doesn't get control. And no
clean way to percolate.
Mostly - catching an error (bad memory reference) in an ESTAE exit...
- Dave Rivers -
--
riv...@dignus.com
What advantage do you see in an ESPIE over an ESTAE?
IIRC, there are quite a few conditions where it doesn't get control. And no
clean way to percolate.
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 18:21:46 -0400 Thomas David Rivers
wrote:
:>I'm sure many on this list will know the answer to this,
:>and I've been rea
(E)SPIE is associated only with the task issuing it.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Thomas David Rivers
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 6:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subj
I wouldnt think so. Normally ATTACH creates a boundary, and only certain
things can cross that boundary, like for instance, an ESTAI.
Joe
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:26 PM Thomas David Rivers
wrote:
> I'm sure many on this list will know the answer to this,
> and I've been reading various manuals
44 matches
Mail list logo
