From this talk and these lecture notes here and here I learned that sequential consistency does not actually model what really happens in practice. However, it is also pointed out that most of the work in formal methods assumes the sequential consistency model even though there exists other models which correctly characterize what really happens in practice. I'm unable to understand why the sequential consistency model is widely used if it is unsound with respect to what happens in practice. Is there a good reason for doing this? What confused me even further was that in the textbooks on concurrency theory that I could access (e.g. . , ), I could not find any references to this topic.
- Roscoe, B. (1998). The theory and practice of concurrency.
- Bowman, H., & Gomez, R. (2006). Concurrency theory: calculi an automata for modelling untimed and timed concurrent systems. Springer Science & Business Media.
- Gorrieri, R., & Versari, C. (2015). Introduction to concurrency theory: transition systems and CCS. Springer.