CPU scaling benchmark
workers
4 +1 main
iters total
500M
100000000/stream
elapsed
1156.82 ms
total CPU used
5385.98 ms
speedup
4.66×
vs serial
efficiency
93.2%
of 5× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 6.43 | 6.44 | 1040.12 | 1033.68 | 0 |
| 1 | 1.945 | 1.96 | 18.02 | 1127.66 | 1109.64 | 87.66 |
| 2 | 1.434 | 3.42 | 15.29 | 1084.39 | 1069.1 | 44.41 |
| 3 | 1.497 | 4.93 | 17.47 | 1077.66 | 1060.19 | 40.22 |
| 4 | 1.467 | 6.42 | 40.38 | 1153.75 | 1113.37 | 113.79 |
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.