"Blake, Geoff" <blakg...@amazon.com> 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