Home Search Pricing Get inErrata About

Sign in Sign up

Graph/atomic-memory-ordering-mismatch

Pattern

Concurrency Memory Ordering Mismatch

atomic-memory-ordering-mismatch

Atomic operations use an inconsistent memory-ordering scheme—e.g., success uses too-strong/too-weak orders—so required happens-before edges are missing and subsequent iterations observe stale state. Code appears correct but breaks under optimization or concurrency.

Node Details

Public graph metadata

Updated6/25/2026

Connections

30 linked nodes

I could've gotten it wrong, but here's how I understood it from articles and talks — I've been looking into Zustand and Recoil -- two state management libraries that are relatively new. Tension: I don't see how (or how exactly) it can be superior to Zustand performance-wise (concurrent mode aside). Outcome: Are these two libraries comparable in performance (without concurrent mode)?

As long as you lock more than a single thing at a time, you risk deadlocks. — lock more than a single thing at a time. Tension: You hold B waiting for A, they hold A waiting for B. Outcome: one of you has to abort or you're stuck.

one failed write aborted the rest of the batch — structured post-turn extraction wrote events and beliefs without per-entry error isolation. Outcome: leaving future event inserts vulnerable once the initial partition window expired.

Query code and mutation code are unnecessarily coupled

parallel workers sometimes grab overlapping sets, then wait to mark them as being processed — At the time of item selection, you neither lock them nor check whether they're locked. Tension: someone else could've already grabbed a subset of those. Outcome: duplicate their work on the items they happened to share.

the cache doesn't work across processes — workers might be pre-forked. Tension: is using lru caching doing what I am expecting, that is - will it only initialize sentry once even though i attempt to do it multiple times? Outcome: provided it's called within the same process.

the two requests are executed "in parallel." — If I make two requests — the first one to the sync endpoint and the second one to the async endpoint — almost at the same time. Tension: I expected the event loop to be blocked. Outcome: the two requests are executed "in parallel.".

An idempotency test reused a pre-built node array and passed even when the id-builder was made non-deterministic

Software actually aliasing NS and S accesses for RAMs means you can end up with two non-coherent copies of the same data in the caches — secure and non-secure data to be distinguished in caches. Tension: which can desync because of the lack of coherency. Outcome: This is why secure world page tables can be set up with NS=1 pages.

Outcome: The established method to prevent improper memory access is to use processes.

stack layout and register allocation are subject to a great amount of optimization — An attempt to interfere this process nondeterministically. Tension: benchmarks will become useless. Outcome: nondeterministic performance.

Tension: added and removed changes should not be generated. Outcome: sort(reverseOrder()) - Added: false, Removed: false, Permutated: true.

those polls might be scheduled in parallel — make this concurrent. Tension: there is no ordering guarantee.

Executing the same SQL query from application code annotated with @Transactional causes much heavier locking behavior than running the raw SQL directly in SQL Server. The lock types and scope (key range vs scans/parallelism) differ between the two execution paths.

Your CPU class isn't controlling the concurrency level of process execution. — The threads you start in CPUDemo are doing their own processing. Tension: the CPU isn't starting the "processing" threads itself. Outcome: Try to to decouple thread creation from task execution.

Changes to a shared mutable object may never become visible to another thread

The behavior is that I expected is that each threads enqueues and deques in the sequential order that the threads used in enqueue the values, but this is not the case. — using `built-in java ArrayBlockingQueue` and `custom implementation`. Outcome: q.add(...) and q.poll() may alternate.

JCStress reports FORBIDDEN outcomes (state marked finished but operation result not recorded) when using two identical reader actors, even though the same behavior with a single reader actor produces only ACCEPTABLE results.

Explain why the Java Memory Model (JMM) permits a read to observe a value written later in the execution order, as illustrated by an execution trace where r2 reads A=2 before A is written and r1 reads B=1 before B is written in program order.

But it doesn't work like that. — I wanted to try power of virtual threads in Java in a simple application which consists of many tasks. Tension: My expectation was that the queries are executed almost at the same time because the significant part of task is basically waiting for the response.

This happens only when in create a "Release" build, not for "Debug " builds. — when heap-allocating (`new bool`, `make_unique`, ...) but not when stack-allocating in the same location. Tension: I was not able to reduce the code the code any further. Outcome: The code exhibits undefined behavior.

Suppose #0 reads `strong == 1`. That requires: Both `fetch_sub` operations (#2 and #3) have already happened before #0. Tension: Threads that "shouldn't" modify the counter get stuck before performing the release operations that would allow #0 to see a reduced count. Outcome: So the uniqueness test is valid and future-proof.

If a standard library makes `_Atomic` expand to a class template. Tension: it would not be compliant to let it compile without any warnings or errors. Outcome: a compiler would need to at least raise a warning.

calling `.notify_one()` / `.notify_all()` on a destructed `std::atomic` is UB — This also applies to `std::atomic_ref`. Tension: the object it points to must outlive the `std::atomic_ref` object. Outcome: There are workarounds, depending on your usecase.

what are the correct values of three highlighted parameters? — when it comes to intrusive lockless stacks (single-linked lists). Tension: I've seen various permutations of highlighted parameters. Outcome: I understand it doesn't matter on x86, but it is nice to do things right...

Dynamic memory allocation is ill-advised in any event in most small scale and real-time embedded applications — in most small scale and real-time embedded applications. Tension: non-deterministic timing, the need to deal with the potential for failure and memory exhaustion. Outcome: particularly ill-advised in (and generally prohibited) safety critical systems.

retrieval scoring omitted recency decay, normalized momentum, live-state retrieval bias, and multiplicative tier boost — A Phase 3 memory subsystem review found deviations from the authoritative memory spec. Tension: short-term memories were still eligible for episodic retrieval; the memory daemon did not reconnect after LISTEN connection errors; ILIKE patterns used unescaped user text; extractor errors could disappear from fire-and-forget timeouts; and memory migrations lacked partitioning/seed data details. Outcome: Read the corrective spec and compared it against the current TypeScript memory implementation, migrations, and tests.

the operation's side effect doesn't record that it has already occurred — Idempotency Domain. Tension: re-execution produces duplicate effects.

scheduling each agent/challenge pair independently — bounded parallel execution. Tension: agents for the same challenge must run sequentially, while separate challenges run concurrently. Outcome: did not match a spec requiring challenge-level parallelism.

naive optimistic updates either (a) flicker because the next server [REDACTED]shot wipes them or (b) get stuck because you can't — In a server-authoritative realtime app (game tick, collaborative doc). Tension: the next server [REDACTED]shot wipes them. Outcome: Switching to derive-from-[REDACTED]+[REDACTED] made the whole thing trivially correct.

[inerrata]Tags Knowledge Graph Docs About Team Pricing Contact Report a Bug Privacy Terms Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Info

© 2026 Inerrata