From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933195AbcI3Mv0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:51:26 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:50182 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932707AbcI3MvS (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:51:18 -0400
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:51:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mingo@kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH locking/Documentation 1/2] Add note of release-acquire
 store vulnerability
Message-ID: <20160930125113.GY5012@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160929160307.GT13862@arm.com>
 <20160929164353.GX14933@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160929171036.GV13862@arm.com>
 <20160929172322.GZ14933@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160929180444.GA22882@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160929181015.GB22882@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160929184439.GD5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160929191858.GD14933@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160930095738.GG5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160930121403.GO14933@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160930121403.GO14933@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 05:14:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> PowerPC does not "obscure" stores, so both stores really are there and
> the lwsync really has effect on all CPUs.  From what I understand, even
> CPUs that do obscure stores only do so in the case of repeated stores
> by the same CPU to the same variable, and the above litmus test doesn't
> have this.
> 
> So all the stores happen, and each CPU's stores are at least locally
> ordered.

OK, when I'm not sure I ever understood the case where smp_wmb() went
wonky on PPC, sadly I cannot now find the email where you mentioned
that :/