CPU scaling benchmark
workers
4 +1 main
iters total
500M
100000000/stream
elapsed
1183.96 ms
total CPU used
5226.21 ms
speedup
4.41×
vs serial
efficiency
88.2%
of 5× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 6.11 | 6.12 | 1107.73 | 1101.61 | 0 |
| 1 | 1.796 | 1.81 | 19.88 | 1129.7 | 1109.82 | 22.09 |
| 2 | 1.389 | 3.22 | 16.79 | 893.14 | 876.35 | 0.11 |
| 3 | 1.413 | 4.65 | 18.57 | 1012.73 | 994.16 | 0.17 |
| 4 | 1.44 | 6.1 | 36.7 | 1180.97 | 1144.27 | 73.38 |
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.