Talk:Processor consistency

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Is Example 3 really not causally consistent?

The article claims that execution in Example 3 is not causally consistent. Is it so? W(x)2 in P2 is indeed caused by R(x)1 in P2, but other processors don't see them in different order. The execution would not be causally consistent if P3 or P4 observed R(x)2 R(x)1, but it would be not PC as well. Seems like @Rayman1104: also noticed it and tried to fix, but @Wandering Logic: rolled it back since the new execution failed to be cache coherent. What's the intended example? --188.170.73.110 (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]