Could you clarify why/how this would happen? Is it because the last process sets it to zero to initialize a variable?
I can’t conceptualize the steps that would end up with this result if all processes are adding. It seems like it would at least equal the result of the final thread’s calculation.
The details of the 'LDRF' (local data race freedom) property are described in detail here: https://anil.recoil.org/papers/2018-pldi-memorymodel.pdf
The performance numbers are in the paper abstract: "our evaluation demonstrates that it is possible to balance a comprehensible memory model with a reasonable (no overhead on x86, ~0.6% on ARM) sequential performance trade-off in a mainstream programming language". It's a little higher on PowerPC but still very usable, and RISC-V overheads should be roughly comparable to ARM.
In many popular languages today (e.g. C++) if you have a data race you're completely screwed, (e.g. the program exits successfully, even though it was supposed to loop forever serving TCP requests - good luck figuring out why). In Java they decided OK, that's not acceptable, so data races are constrained to only the data touched by the race and, importantly, that data is still legal it just might be astonishing (e.g. you were adding several small positive integers together from a shared data structure in parallel, but due to a misunderstanding in your design this was actually a data race, and some time later somehow your total is now zero, but you won't crash or whatever)
OCaml intends to further constrain the consequences in time, if the total was 114 when you stopped adding, it will still be 114 later, it won't mysteriously become zero (or any other value) thanks to a data race which must have happened before you checked.
[I'm sure I have some details wrong, but this is the gist]
What remains to be seen is: Is that enough? There was great hope when Java made its rules that they were enough and programmers could understand what was wrong in a Java program with data races, that did not pan out as I understand it. So, it seems to me that it's possible OCaml ends up in the same situation.