A noisy baseline

§

Our running example sums an array of doubles, in short bursts. Real services rarely hammer the CPU continuously: they handle a request, sit idle, and wake up for the next one. Each timed iteration here runs a burst of 256 sums after a 2 ms idle gap, with the gap excluded from the measurement² ² PauseTiming / ResumeTiming keep the sleep out of the measured time, and DoNotOptimize keeps the result alive past the optimizer; without it the compiler deletes the entire loop. 

static auto BM_Sum(benchmark::State& state) -> void {
  alignas(64) static std::array<double, 4096> data;
  std::iota(data.begin(), data.end(), 0.0);
  for (auto _ : state) {
    state.PauseTiming();  // Idle between bursts, like a real service
    std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(2));
    state.ResumeTiming();
    for (auto i = 0; i < 256; ++i) {
      auto sum = std::accumulate(data.cbegin(), data.cend(), 0.0);
      benchmark::DoNotOptimize(sum);
    }
  }
}
BENCHMARK(BM_Sum);

Compile it in release with all optimizations, -O3, and -march=native -mtune=native -flto -ffast-math. Then run ten repetitions and aggregate them

$ ./benchmark --benchmark_repetitions=10 --benchmark_min_time=100x
BM_Sum_mean      99575 ns
BM_Sum_stddev     2704 ns
BM_Sum_cv         2.72 %

The interesting line is cv, the coefficient of variation: standard deviation divided by mean. Almost 3% of run-to-run noise—any optimization smaller than that is invisible. Let’s bring it down.

Know your hardware

§

Before turning any knob, look at what you are tuning. lstopo draws the whole machine in one picture: caches, cores, SMT pairs, and the PCIe devices hanging off them. Start with my laptop

Here the choice of core changes what you measure: land on CPU 4 and you get an E-core at lower clocks; on CPU 12 you lose the L3 too. Now compare that against my homelab server

On the server every core is as good as any other: homogeneous machines make better benchmarking boxes. The PCIe side matters once a benchmark touches I/O: it shows which NVMe or NIC you are exercising and, on multi-socket machines, which NUMA node it hangs off.

Pin to a core

§

The scheduler is free to migrate the benchmark between cores, and every migration throws away warm caches. On hybrid CPUs it’s worse: performance and efficiency cores run the same code at very different speeds, so results turn bimodal depending on where the process lands. Pin the benchmark to a single core (on hybrid parts, a P-core)

$ taskset -c 2 ./benchmark ...

The mean falls to 55.3 µs and the CV better than halves, to 1.06%. The win is bigger than migration costs alone would suggest: every burst now wakes the same core, so that core’s clock never has time to sag between bursts.³ ³ Pinning puts the benchmark onto the core but does not keep other tasks off it. On a busy box, go further and reserve the core for the benchmark alone, either on the kernel command line (isolcpus=2 nohz_full=2 rcu_nocbs=2) or at runtime with a cpuset cgroup. 

Lock the CPU frequency

§

By default Linux scales the CPU frequency with load, so the benchmark starts on a cold, slow clock and finishes on a hot, fast one. Switch the frequency governor to performance to keep clocks locked high

$ sudo cpupower frequency-set --governor performance

and verify it took effect

$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
performance

Re-measuring gives a mean of 54.9 µs and a CV of 0.79%. The increment looks modest only because pinning already kept our core’s clock warm: on its own, the performance governor takes the unpinned baseline from 99.6 µs straight to 54.5 µs. Either way, no burst ever wakes up on a cold clock again.

Disable hyperthreading

§

CPU still shares its execution units and L1/L2 caches with its SMT sibling: anything the scheduler places there perturbs our measurement. Disable SMT entirely

$ echo off | sudo tee /sys/devices/system/cpu/smt/control

The CV drops to 0.26%, three times better: the core now has its execution units and caches all to itself.

Disable turbo boost

§

Even with the performance governor, turbo frequencies vary with temperature and power budget: the same run on a warm machine clocks lower than on a cool one. Disable turbo for stable clocks

$ echo 0 | sudo tee /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost

On this machine nothing changes, since our short bursts never gave the silicon time to boost anyway. On a machine where turbo does engage, expect the mean to climb instead: you are giving up peak performance. That trade is fine, since when optimizing we care about relative numbers, and those are now comparable across runs.⁴ ⁴ Low-latency production tuning makes the opposite call and keeps turbo on: there, every nanosecond counts. The most latency-sensitive trading shops go further and run overclocked servers, locked at a fixed all-core frequency above stock—speed and stable clocks, bought with better cooling. 

Summary

§

Here is the whole journey in one table, each row adding one change on top of all the previous ones. We went from almost 3% of noise down to 0.26%, and got 1.8x faster along the way; differences of half a percent are now real, measurable signal.⁵ ⁵ Feel free to reproduce on your machine using the benchmark from my CppPlayground repository. 

On busier machines there is a longer tail of knobs worth trying: disabling address space layout randomization, the NMI watchdog, or transparent huge pages. The bench-remote.sh script applies all. None of it survives a reboot, which is exactly what you want: tune, measure, and reboot back to a normal machine.

Long live reproducible benchmarks!