CPU scaling benchmark
workers
4 +1 main
iters total
500M
100000000/stream
elapsed
1213.45 ms
total CPU used
5256.86 ms
speedup
4.33×
vs serial
efficiency
86.6%
of 5× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 6.48 | 6.49 | 1195.93 | 1189.44 | 0 |
| 1 | 1.945 | 1.96 | 14.25 | 925.8 | 911.55 | 0.1 |
| 2 | 1.436 | 3.42 | 20.26 | 924.44 | 904.18 | 0.16 |
| 3 | 1.491 | 4.93 | 17.62 | 1096.03 | 1078.41 | 0.17 |
| 4 | 1.526 | 6.47 | 37.06 | 1210.34 | 1173.28 | 14.52 |
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.