"Blake, Geoff" <[email protected]> writes:
> Have a tiny patch to add an implementation of spin_delay() for Arm64
> processors to match behavior with x86's PAUSE instruction. See negligible
> benefit on the pgbench tpcb-like workload so at worst it appears to do no
> harm but should help some workloads that experience some lock contention that
> need to spin.
Given the very wide variety of ARM implementations out there,
I'm not sure that we want to take a patch like this on the basis of
exactly zero evidence. It could as easily be a net loss as a win.
What did you test exactly?
regards, tom lane
