CPU scaling benchmark
workers
4 +1 main
iters total
500M
100000000/stream
elapsed
1188.59 ms
total CPU used
5374.99 ms
speedup
4.52×
vs serial
efficiency
90.4%
of 5× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 7.97 | 7.98 | 1062.29 | 1054.31 | 0 |
| 1 | 1.975 | 1.99 | 14.1 | 1041.75 | 1027.65 | 0.09 |
| 2 | 1.52 | 3.53 | 15.86 | 1099.04 | 1083.18 | 36.92 |
| 3 | 2.68 | 6.23 | 21.43 | 1185.89 | 1164.46 | 123.73 |
| 4 | 1.728 | 7.97 | 49.89 | 1095.28 | 1045.39 | 33.09 |
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.