Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > em64t, 2 proc + 2 HT, 3.4ghz, 4G, 2.6.12:
>
> > N, runtime:    1 31s    2 47s    4 86s    8 159s
>
> > N, runtime:    1 32s    2 53s    4 90s    8 169s
>
> Er, which (or both) of the two patches did you apply here?

Applied both, sorry that wasn't clear.
Thanks,
    Stephen