So you want to benchmark a long running CPU intensive application on your laptop? That’s cool, I have a neat trick for you if you want to do that: don’t. Just don’t. Don’t run CPU intensive benchmarks on your laptop. Run them anywhere else: on a workstation, on a server, on your smartphone—well maybe not. Ok, you are doing it anyway, right? Well, I am doing it anyway. Let me describe the world of pain you are about to enter.

Update 2015-08-09: I describe a somehow acceptable solution to issues listed here in this new post, so you might want to jump to it directly. Unless you want to know all the different ways in which you can fail.


I am benchmarking the speed of a single-core algorithm implemented in C++ which varies depending on a parameter. I expect the speed to increase very slightly with the parameter value until a point where it collapses. The goal is to find the turning point.

My laptop has an Intel Core i7 4810MQ built in which is perfect to run into issues. Its frequency goes from 2.8Ghz all the way up to 3.8GHz (+1Ghz !) in turbo mode. So with this processor, I can be 100% sure I will run into frequency scaling issues.

The full set of experiments runs for about 3 hours. Oh! And what’s my good excuse to do CPU intensive benchmarks on my laptop? It’s the only Haswell processor I easily have access to and it worked well last time. So there is no reason it wouldn’t work this time, right?

Failure, Pain, Failure

Obvious prerequisites

  • Shutdown X11
  • Do not use your computer while the benchmark runs
  • Plug your laptop - Disable energy saving
  • Set your frequency scaling governor to performance

To change your frequency scaling governor:

$ for ((i=0; i<8; i++)); do sudo cpufreq-set -g performance -c $i
$ cpufreq-info # Check

Naive approaches

Let’s start by naively running the full set of experiments

$ ./

Oh, and by the way, before you start fainting, the python script is just a wrapper which runs my algorithm — again, implemented in C++ — for each value of the parameter. I am not benchmarking the CPU run time of a Python script. And… look at the nice graph I get:

Of course the ugly dent was not expected, and is probably due to the experimental conditions — and from what will follow we can call them poor experimental conditions.

Ok, no problem, I will re-run the script for a few points (0.7% and 1%), I said. What could go wrong?

$ ./ 0.7 1 # Only a few points this time

It sure “fixed” the graph:

Time to think a little, what could be the causes of this issue? Well, first, laptops are designed to offer limited performance bursts, not run at full blast for three hours. The Core i7-4810MQ might be able to run at 3.8Ghz but it has a TDP of 47W, where desktop processors have a TDP of about ~84W.

So, possible causes:

Frequency scaling down because of excessive heat
However, frequency is expected to stabilize at some point in the experiment as a function of room temperature and maximum fan speed. It would explain a continuous decrease in performance during the experiment but not this dent.

Process moved to another core by the scheduler
It may also have been moved back to the original core after a while. Moving a process from one core to another causes a temporary performance degradation because the L1/L2 caches need to be warmed up again, the branch predictor needs to recover its state etc. Besides, the new core might run at a lower or higher frequency.

Using taskset

Let’s try to eliminate this second cause, and prevent the scheduler from moving the process to another core. I remind you that my algorithm uses a single core. The taskset command allows binding commands (or PIDs) to a given CPU core by setting its CPU affinity:

$ taskset -c0 ./

No luck.

We still have this ugly dent in the graph. However notice how the graph is a lot smoother than previously.

Reducing the number of points

At this point I wanted to validate the idea that dents were caused by frequency scaling/scheduling issues and not that I had a specific issue at 0.7%. I therefore tried to draw the same graph with less points, thus reducing the likelihood of a frequency scaling or scheduling event. Moreover, I reduced the size of my dataset: previously each point of the graph was an average on 10000 inputs, it is now an average of 2000 inputs. Note that the x-axis of the graph below is different of previous ones.

So this confirms the hypothesis.

Using cset

taskset does force a command to run on a specific CPU core but it does not prevent other processes (or kernel interrupts) to get scheduled on this core. Cpusets offer a way to reserve cpu cores for a process and prevent other processes from using them. They can be manipulated using the cset userspace utility.

$ sudo cset shield -k on -c 2,6 # 2 and 6 are hyperthreads of Core 2

This shields CPU cores 2 and 6 (which are two hyperthreads of the same core, see core id /proc/cpuinfo) and prevents Linux from scheduling any processes on them.

Let’s now execute our benchmark inside the shield:

$ sudo cset shield --exec ./

I ran the experiment twice to get a better understanding of what was going on. Graphs look a little bit better but there is still a lot of variability in the experiments.

Controlling the environment

The last try was putting the laptop in a cooler room—yes, for real. I shielded only one hyperthread (ie core 2) to avoid the process from jumping from one hyperthread to another:

$ sudo cset shield -k on -c 2
$ sudo cset shield --exec ./

With the exception of the first two points, the graph looks ok. Maybe for the first point the CPU was cold enough so that it could run at its full turbo frequency while starting from the second point, frequency decreases because of heat accumulation.


I was thinking: you know why people benchmark CPU cycles instead of run time in seconds? Maybe because they don’t want to deal with this madness. But, I started this way, I am not giving up until I get proper timings.

A few takeways:

  • Shielding CPUs using cpusets removed dents in the graphs
  • Preventing heat accumulation is probably important

Next directions:

  • CPU warm up experiment. Run the experiment for the first point of the curve twice and discard the first run.
  • Wait between each point for CPU temperature to decrase
  • Monitoring frequency, CPU temperature during the benchmark to correlate with performance decrease.

Comments on Hacker News