Coherency will be maintained (since the protocols support that case). But yes, a separate process would evict that memory. From the processors point of view, th

Coherency will be maintained (since the protocols support that case). But yes, a separate process would evict that memory. From the processors point of view, they're just addresses tagged with data. Caching behavior doesnt depend on virtual memory addresses because I believe that info is stripped away at that point. So if someone is thrashing cache on the same core you're on, you will notice it if the processes aren't being shared effectively. The contents of the cache aren't stored as part of a paused process or context switch. But I'd appreciate a correction here if I'm wrong. For an example, consider two processes A and B running on a set of cores. If A makes many more memory accesses than B, A can effectively starve B of "cached" memory accesses because A accesses memory more frequently. If B were run alone, then it's working set would fit in cache. Effectively making the algorithm operate from cache instead of RAM. BUT. You really have to be hitting the caches hard. Doesn't happen too often in casual applications. I only encountered this on GPUs (where each core has sperate L1 but a shared L2). Even then it's only aa problem if every core is hitting different cache lines.