CPU scaling benchmark
workers
4 +1 main
iters total
500M
100000000/stream
elapsed
1272.88 ms
total CPU used
5357.12 ms
speedup
4.21×
vs serial
efficiency
84.2%
of 5× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 7.41 | 7.42 | 1124.92 | 1117.5 | 0 |
| 1 | 1.985 | 2.01 | 24.41 | 923.32 | 898.91 | 0.1 |
| 2 | 1.677 | 3.72 | 19.93 | 1037.71 | 1017.78 | 0.17 |
| 3 | 1.798 | 5.55 | 21.33 | 1118.6 | 1097.27 | 0.19 |
| 4 | 1.799 | 7.39 | 44.26 | 1269.92 | 1225.66 | 145.17 |
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.