CPU scaling benchmark
workers
16 +1 main
iters total
500M
29411764/stream
elapsed
1183.34 ms
total CPU used
16688.56 ms
speedup
14.1×
vs serial
efficiency
82.9%
of 17× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 87.08 | 87.09 | 1111.33 | 1024.24 | 0 |
| 1 | 1.97 | 1.98 | 27.91 | 1164.81 | 1136.9 | 53.64 |
| 2 | 1.451 | 3.46 | 16.53 | 1110.53 | 1094 | 0.16 |
| 3 | 1.48 | 4.95 | 45.62 | 940.97 | 895.35 | 15.44 |
| 4 | 1.507 | 6.47 | 43.54 | 1123.37 | 1079.83 | 15.55 |
| 5 | 1.566 | 8.06 | 56.75 | 1138.71 | 1081.96 | 35.37 |
| 6 | 1.363 | 9.43 | 56.75 | 788.83 | 732.08 | 15.46 |
| 7 | 1.429 | 10.88 | 46.79 | 905.88 | 859.09 | 15.47 |
| 8 | 2.952 | 13.85 | 51.41 | 1169.26 | 1117.85 | 58.05 |
| 9 | 1.454 | 15.31 | 68.85 | 1055.11 | 986.26 | 15.49 |
| 10 | 8.79 | 24.13 | 43.39 | 1135.64 | 1092.25 | 35.62 |
| 11 | 3.427 | 27.58 | 70.64 | 1120.37 | 1049.73 | 15.57 |
| 12 | 5.185 | 32.77 | 116.75 | 1180.69 | 1063.94 | 69.49 |
| 13 | 15.744 | 48.54 | 106.8 | 1154.44 | 1047.64 | 43.23 |
| 14 | 2.325 | 50.89 | 106.79 | 1130.35 | 1023.56 | 24.28 |
| 15 | 1.916 | 52.82 | 116.78 | 651.63 | 534.85 | 15.5 |
| 16 | 34.236 | 87.07 | 136.79 | 1005.82 | 869.03 | 15.52 |
main
w1
w2
w3
w4
w5
w6
w7
w8
w9
w10
w11
w12
w13
w14
w15
w16
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.