CPU scaling benchmark
workers
4 +1 main
iters total
500M
100000000/stream
elapsed
1235.39 ms
total CPU used
5336.23 ms
speedup
4.32×
vs serial
efficiency
86.4%
of 5× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 7.29 | 7.3 | 1160.7 | 1153.4 | 0 |
| 1 | 2.006 | 2.02 | 16.26 | 959.32 | 943.06 | 0.1 |
| 2 | 1.52 | 3.56 | 16.57 | 1086.28 | 1069.71 | 0.17 |
| 3 | 1.475 | 5.06 | 20.99 | 1232.58 | 1211.59 | 72.03 |
| 4 | 2.206 | 7.28 | 46.82 | 1005.29 | 958.47 | 0.18 |
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.