CPU scaling benchmark
workers
16 +1 main
iters total
500M
29411764/stream
elapsed
1189.69 ms
total CPU used
17270.79 ms
speedup
14.52×
vs serial
efficiency
85.4%
of 17× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 112.89 | 112.91 | 1129.77 | 1016.86 | 0 |
| 1 | 2.159 | 2.18 | 14.93 | 1067.35 | 1052.42 | 0.18 |
| 2 | 1.801 | 4 | 16.26 | 994.49 | 978.23 | 0.23 |
| 3 | 1.849 | 5.86 | 18.82 | 921.14 | 902.32 | 0.24 |
| 4 | 1.597 | 7.48 | 65.36 | 1083.34 | 1017.98 | 0.25 |
| 5 | 7.906 | 15.39 | 36.53 | 1084.88 | 1048.35 | 0.26 |
| 6 | 2.419 | 17.82 | 52.16 | 1122.31 | 1070.15 | 0.28 |
| 7 | 2.039 | 19.88 | 62.53 | 1144.23 | 1081.7 | 14.56 |
| 8 | 12.839 | 32.73 | 75.65 | 1173.81 | 1098.16 | 44.16 |
| 9 | 12.979 | 45.73 | 98.62 | 1133.96 | 1035.34 | 9.28 |
| 10 | 2.452 | 48.19 | 77.28 | 1040.37 | 963.09 | 9.23 |
| 11 | 27.534 | 75.74 | 112.78 | 1159.99 | 1047.21 | 30.7 |
| 12 | 8.207 | 83.96 | 133.04 | 1166.97 | 1033.93 | 37.4 |
| 13 | 21.751 | 105.73 | 153.06 | 1162.06 | 1009 | 35.55 |
| 14 | 3.295 | 109.04 | 185.64 | 1123.93 | 938.29 | 9.26 |
| 15 | 2.016 | 111.07 | 195.69 | 1186.66 | 990.97 | 56.99 |
| 16 | 1.788 | 112.88 | 165.68 | 1152.47 | 986.79 | 27.03 |
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.