Talk:z/Architecture
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Bad links[edit]
The links to "dataspaces" and "hiperspaces" can't be corrected so I removed them. If anyone wants to create appropriate pages feel free (and restore the links). Martin Packer (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
CPU register table[edit]
It would be nice to add a CPU register table for the Z architecture, similar to that shown for the S/370 and various other mainframe, mini, and microprocessor CPUs. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Byte-addressable[edit]
The term byte-accessible, which had been used in the article now here as ==IBM mainframe expanded storage==
is not telling the whole story.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4504775/endianness-inside-cpu-registers
refers to a situation described as:
- "That's byte accessible, not byte "addressable'"
- (loading a word into a pair of registers and then accessing one byte in one of the registers)
The IBM addressing system has an ADDRESS for each byte!
Not a deciding vote, but... Dr. Google prefers byte-addressable to byte-accessible Pi314m (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
MVCL, MVPG atomic?[edit]
I'm puzzled by the statement that both MVPG and MVCL are atomic. I think MVCL has always been interruptible (from GA22-7000-10 for S/370, SA22-7832-00 for Z/Architecture; note 8 on MVCL in both references describes some bad scenarios), and therefore can be observed as partially complete even on a single CPU. MVPG is not interruptible, but the last paragraph of its description in SA32-7832-00 implies that it can be observed as partially executed by other CPUs and channel programs: "not necessarily performed in a left-to-right direction as observed by other CPUs and by channel programs." Clem Dickey (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Per above reference to 370 POP Note 8 (on p. 7-27 of GA22-7000-10), and after reviewing the Patent notes I cited in Z/Architecture, which highlights Dr. Google's disagreement with saying "Atomicity," it seems that using the diplomatic plural rather than "THE" to edit and mend/emend/amend non-compliance with:
- (From Greek "atomos", indivisible) Indivisible; cannot be split up (atomic from FOLDOC)
- a guarantee of isolation from interrupts, signals, concurrent processes and threads. (2nd sentence, Atomicity (programming), which redirects to Linearizability)
- an operation: guaranteed to complete either fully or not at all while waiting in a pause, and running synchronously when called by multiple asynchronous threads. (wiktionary: atomic, for computing)
- to read:
- These instructions do not comply with definitions for Atomic / AtomicAtomicity, although they can be used as a single instruction within documented timing and non-overlap restrictions.[1]{{rp|Note 8, page 7-27}}<ref>"things are done immediately, and there is no chance of the instruction being half-completed or of another being interspersed. Used especially to convey that an operation cannot be interrupted." {{cite web
|url=http://wwww.foldoc.org/atomic |title=Atomic from FOLDOC}}</ref>
- These instructions do not comply with definitions for Atomic / AtomicAtomicity, although they can be used as a single instruction within documented timing and non-overlap restrictions.[1]{{rp|Note 8, page 7-27}}<ref>"things are done immediately, and there is no chance of the instruction being half-completed or of another being interspersed. Used especially to convey that an operation cannot be interrupted." {{cite web
|url=http://wwww.foldoc.org/atomic |title=Atomic from FOLDOC}}</ref>
- Per above reference to 370 POP Note 8 (on p. 7-27 of GA22-7000-10), and after reviewing the Patent notes I cited in Z/Architecture, which highlights Dr. Google's disagreement with saying "Atomicity," it seems that using the diplomatic plural rather than "THE" to edit and mend/emend/amend non-compliance with:
- is a good idea. I will also add as "Further Reading" Preshing on Programming - Atomic vs. Non-Atomic Operations (http://preshing.com/20130618/atomic-vs-non-atomic-operations) and another item.
- My WP:OR on the matter is:
- Atomicity is only from a limited perspective, since an external probe operating at a higher speed can observe a before/early-stage_during/mid-stage_during/late-stage_during/after of an event that the processor under observation, to the extent that it has a say, says is atomic. MVCL, according to the Principles of Operation manual, does not allow the operands to overlap, hence "not necessarily performed in a left-to-right direction as observed by other CPUs and by channel programs" is not only permitted but often a good way to do things, especially compared to MVC-loops of decades past. Pi314m (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- My WP:OR on the matter is:
References
- ^ MOVE LONG, note 8. "GA22-7000-10, IBM System/370, Principles of Operation" (PDF).
s/390x[edit]
while s/390x redirects here, it is nowhere explained. s/390x and s/390 are two similar, but different things, this needs to be explained... --151.37.183.184 (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- "s/390x" doesn't exist. s390x now redirects to Linux on IBM Z § Hardware, which mentions the Linuxisms "s390" and "s390x". Guy Harris (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)