CPU scaling benchmark
workers
4 +1 main
iters total
500M
100000000/stream
elapsed
1254.42 ms
total CPU used
5308.59 ms
speedup
4.23×
vs serial
efficiency
84.6%
of 5× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 6.61 | 6.62 | 1254.15 | 1247.53 | 0 |
| 1 | 2.022 | 2.04 | 19.24 | 1005.85 | 986.61 | 0.1 |
| 2 | 1.557 | 3.62 | 17.88 | 969.6 | 951.72 | 0.18 |
| 3 | 1.526 | 5.17 | 17.3 | 1041.28 | 1023.98 | 0.2 |
| 4 | 1.414 | 6.6 | 34.27 | 1133.02 | 1098.75 | 0.22 |
main
w1
w2
w3
w4
fork+handshake
CPU work
parent reap wait
what this measures
Each stream runs a tight integer LCG loop — working set is one CPU register, no memory access,
no shared data. Speedup = sum(stream CPU time) / wall-clock elapsed. Efficiency = speedup / (workers+1).
100% efficiency means perfect linear scaling; less than 100% is the cost of serial fork setup,
reap tail, SMT/core contention.