CPU scaling benchmark
workers
4 +1 main
iters total
500M
100000000/stream
elapsed
1206.41 ms
total CPU used
5229.67 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 | 10.15 | 10.16 | 1206.14 | 1195.98 | 0 |
| 1 | 2.037 | 2.05 | 15.13 | 890.8 | 875.67 | 0.11 |
| 2 | 1.82 | 3.89 | 16.71 | 1009.29 | 992.58 | 0.19 |
| 3 | 1.58 | 5.49 | 17.89 | 1033.44 | 1015.55 | 0.21 |
| 4 | 4.637 | 10.14 | 31.17 | 1181.06 | 1149.89 | 0.22 |
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.