CPU scaling benchmark
workers
4 +1 main
iters total
500M
100000000/stream
elapsed
1172.27 ms
total CPU used
5320.61 ms
speedup
4.54×
vs serial
efficiency
90.8%
of 5× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 6.41 | 6.42 | 1172.03 | 1165.61 | 0 |
| 1 | 1.822 | 1.83 | 13.9 | 979.21 | 965.31 | 0.09 |
| 2 | 1.479 | 3.33 | 15.14 | 1008.89 | 993.75 | 0.16 |
| 3 | 1.488 | 4.84 | 17.18 | 1115.46 | 1098.28 | 0.18 |
| 4 | 1.532 | 6.39 | 31.56 | 1129.22 | 1097.66 | 0.2 |
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.