CPU scaling benchmark
workers
16 +1 main
iters total
500M
29411764/stream
elapsed
1189.47 ms
total CPU used
17828.86 ms
speedup
14.99×
vs serial
efficiency
88.2%
of 17× ideal
| stream | spawn ms | spawned@ | work start@ | work end@ | work ms | reap wait ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (main) | 0 | 83.14 | 83.15 | 1152.85 | 1069.7 | 0 |
| 1 | 2.002 | 2.01 | 14.76 | 1011.39 | 996.63 | 0.15 |
| 2 | 1.497 | 3.53 | 16.35 | 1068.01 | 1051.66 | 0.21 |
| 3 | 1.588 | 5.14 | 23.68 | 1140.33 | 1116.65 | 0.22 |
| 4 | 4.399 | 9.55 | 33.71 | 1160.76 | 1127.05 | 10.43 |
| 5 | 1.532 | 11.1 | 53.7 | 1079.49 | 1025.79 | 0.24 |
| 6 | 4.653 | 15.76 | 43.71 | 1122.07 | 1078.36 | 0.25 |
| 7 | 1.614 | 17.39 | 71.72 | 1126.43 | 1054.71 | 0.26 |
| 8 | 1.529 | 18.94 | 52.94 | 1078.98 | 1026.04 | 0.27 |
| 9 | 12.908 | 31.87 | 68.85 | 1165.92 | 1097.07 | 13.17 |
| 10 | 12.393 | 44.28 | 92.54 | 1144.61 | 1052.07 | 0.28 |
| 11 | 2.181 | 46.49 | 113.77 | 1110.01 | 996.24 | 0.29 |
| 12 | 6.601 | 53.11 | 113.7 | 1174.1 | 1060.4 | 21.35 |
| 13 | 1.638 | 54.77 | 103.76 | 1141.36 | 1037.6 | 0.3 |
| 14 | 1.372 | 56.16 | 133.72 | 1149.21 | 1015.49 | 3.45 |
| 15 | 24.715 | 80.89 | 133.71 | 1186.6 | 1052.89 | 33.88 |
| 16 | 2.208 | 83.12 | 147.24 | 1117.75 | 970.51 | 3.47 |
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.