Re: Indirect Bit

From	Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Newsgroups	comp.arch
Subject	Re: Indirect Bit
Date	2012-04-22 18:05 -0400
Organization	Wheeler&Wheeler
Message-ID	<m3r4vfwhge.fsf@garlic.com> (permalink)
References	<jn0s4g$n2p$1@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk> <6dcf5b7a18f279b099fda07eaab07121@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
writes:
> Many 360 & 370 opcodes were microcoded and are to this very day on
> z/Arch. That does not imply the use of macros or traps, it's transparently
> supported by the processor. Interrupt handling is very expensive on MVS and
> I would be very surprised if FORTRAN used this for anything other than the
> normal SPIE processing of application programming exceptions such as
> zero-divide, underflow, etc. I would think the Extended Floating Point
> facility is nothing more than microcode assists but even so 4 flavors of
> hardware divide seem to be supported in the base architecture. 

standard 360s up through 360/65 were microcoded ...

majority of 370s were microcoded. 370s up thru 145/148 were "vertical"
microcode ... would look something like modern day "hercules" that
emulates 370 on intel processors. 370 vertical microcode tended to
avg. 10 native instructions per 370 emulated instruction.

i got roped into "ECPS" ... the followon to 135/145 was 138/148 ... it
had faster technology and bigger memories ... it also had extra 6kbytes
of space for "microcode". The idea was to find the 6kbytes of highest
used instructions in the vm370 virtual machine kernel and recode in
native microcode ... which got factor of 10 times performance
improvemnt. old post with some of the analysis that went into deciding
6kbytes of vm370 kernel intructions moved to microcode.

155/158 & 165/168 were "horizontal" microcode machines.

transition from 155/165 to 158/168 was faster memory technology and
various microcode optimization ... aka 165 avg. 2.1 machine cycles per
370 instruction to 1.6 machine cycles per 370 instruction.

in the middle of the 370 period ... corporation had the "Future System"
effort that was going to completely replace 370 ... with something
different ... as a result lots of 370 activity was suspended &/or
killed. when "FS" imploded there was mad rush to the get products back
into the 370 pipeline.

part of this was Q&D 303x in parallel with 370-xa 3081.

the 158 had "integrated channels" ... native engine had two sets of
microcode ... one for channel operation and the other for 370 emulation
sharing the engine. for 303x ... all the machines got external channels
with the "channel director". This was actually a separate box with the
158 native engine with only the integrated channel microcode (& w/o the
370 emulation microcode). The 3031 was a 158 native engine with the 370
emulation microcode (and 2nd 158 native engine with integrated channel
microcode). The 3032 was a 168-3 with new covers reconfigured to work
with 303x channel director (i.e. native 158 engine with integrated
channel microcode).

The 3033 started out being 168 wiring logic remapped to 20% faster
chips. The new faster chips also had approx. ten times the circuits/chip
that initially was going unused (3033 would be 20% faster than 168-3).
There was then some optimization to make more use of the additional
circuits/chip and 3033 eventually shipped approx. 1.5 times 168-3 (long
with one or more channel directors ... 158 native engines with
integrated channel microcode) ... 3033 getting very close to 1 370
instruction per machine cycle.

in the 303x time-frame ... the followon to 138/148 was 4331/4341 (again
vertical microcode machines still approx 10:1 ratio of native to 370
instructions). there was various efforts to try and do something
analogous for the 3033 ... however since 3033 was already close to one
370 instruction per machine cycle (in horizontal microcode) ... most
such activity actually ran slower (on 3033).

in parallel with this there was work on 370-xa 3081 using warmed
over "FS" technology ... described here
http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm

I've frequently contended that the significant hardware complexity of
"FS" played major role in 801/risc going to the opposite extreme.

1980, there was effort to use 801/risc "iliad" chips to converge/replace
the large number of internal "CICS" (vertical) microcode engines ... 370
processors, other processors, large variety of controllers. etc. For a
wide variety of reasons all those efforts floundered ... which saw some
number of 801/risc engineers leaving and going to work on risc at other
vendors.

part of this was to have been the 4361/4381 followons to the 4331/4341.
I contributed to analysis that shot the 801/risc Iliad for 4361/4381.
The argument was that chips were getting big enough that it was starting
to be possible to implement a significant part of 370 natively in
silicon (rather than all microcode). This showed better
price/performance than all microcode 370 on 801/risc.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

Thread

Indirect Bit Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> - 2012-04-10 19:31 -0800
  Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-11 01:29 -0500
    Re: Indirect Bit sarr.blumson@alum.dartmouth.org - 2012-04-11 14:48 +0000
      Re: Indirect Bit mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2012-04-12 14:43 +0000
    Re: Indirect Bit Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2012-04-22 15:19 +0200
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-22 23:24 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-11 08:32 +0200
    Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-11 05:49 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:22 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 08:14 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-13 16:13 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 20:01 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-14 03:16 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 08:14 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-13 16:05 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-13 17:01 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-14 13:49 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-13 20:07 -0400
          Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-14 18:47 +0200
          Re: Indirect Bit Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2012-04-22 15:26 +0200
            Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-22 23:25 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 09:18 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-23 19:35 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 08:37 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 09:42 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 01:58 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 11:26 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 05:02 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 13:58 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 10:07 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-24 04:30 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-24 13:01 +0100
  Re: Indirect Bit Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2012-04-11 10:03 -0400
  Re: Indirect Bit kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2012-04-11 09:22 -0500
    Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-12 14:11 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2012-04-12 18:05 -0400
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 20:13 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> - 2012-04-12 16:55 -0800
        Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-12 17:25 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-12 20:03 -0500
          Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:33 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-13 15:57 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-13 17:03 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 20:14 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-11 10:35 -0400
  Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-11 08:54 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 07:55 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-12 10:16 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-12 11:07 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:34 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-12 11:35 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:41 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 14:52 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-15 09:24 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-15 22:45 +0200
              Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-15 18:04 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-12 21:12 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-04-12 19:23 +0000
    Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-13 08:54 +0200
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-14 14:37 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-15 23:42 +0000
      Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 08:08 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-16 23:38 +0000
          Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-16 21:29 -0700
      Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-16 21:25 -0700
  Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-12 14:05 -0700
    Re: Indirect Bit ChrisQ <blackhole@devnull.com> - 2012-04-14 10:12 +0000
      Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 06:25 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-14 14:50 +0100
          Re: Indirect Bit ChrisQ <blackhole@devnull.com> - 2012-04-14 18:01 +0000
            Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-14 14:00 -0700
              Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-14 20:58 -0400
            Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 09:57 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-04-20 23:19 +0000
          Re: Indirect Bit "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 08:50 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-16 18:09 +0100
              Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-16 23:19 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-17 09:20 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-17 12:49 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-17 12:40 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-18 12:01 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-17 12:34 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-17 09:10 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Andrew Reilly <areilly.---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-04-17 22:05 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-04-19 19:37 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2012-04-20 11:10 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-20 11:24 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-20 15:01 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-20 15:03 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-20 08:01 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-20 16:35 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-18 11:10 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-18 15:37 -0700
          Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-16 11:21 -0700
            Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-16 19:36 +0100
              Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-18 11:17 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-18 15:33 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Andreas Eder <andreas_eder@gmx.net> - 2012-04-19 00:29 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-19 10:50 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-19 11:29 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-19 21:39 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-20 15:14 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-04-20 22:43 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-21 17:14 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-21 19:47 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 10:45 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 09:57 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2012-04-22 12:54 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 13:00 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 13:28 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 13:04 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-04-22 23:00 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-22 18:05 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-22 23:20 +0000
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 08:22 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 03:56 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2012-04-22 12:28 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 12:56 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-22 13:15 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 22:30 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-22 21:40 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-22 17:15 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 08:26 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-04-23 08:02 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2012-04-23 17:02 +0100
                Re: Indirect Bit Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-04-23 20:17 +0200
                Re: Indirect Bit Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-23 13:07 -0500
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-22 13:16 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-23 13:14 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-04-23 16:51 -0400
                Re: Indirect Bit Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-04-23 14:22 -0700
                Re: Indirect Bit MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-04-21 11:17 -0700
        Re: Indirect Bit jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 08:02 -0700

csiph-web