[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (46.70 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions compiled with -g and -fno-omit-frame-pointer

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

-march=x86-64 option is used but it is not specific enough to produce efficient code.

[ 0 / 2 ] Too much execution time spent in category "Others" (43.71 %)

If the category "Others" represents more than 20% of the execution time, it means that the application profile misses a representative part of the application. Examine functions details to properly identify “Others” category components. Rerun after adding most represented library names (e.g. more than 20% of coverage) to external_libraries (the names can be directly provided by ONE View)

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 0 ] Fastmath not used

Consider to add ffast-math to compilation flags (or replace -O3 with -Ofast) to unlock potential extra speedup by relaxing floating-point computation consistency. Warning: floating-point accuracy may be reduced and the compliance to IEEE/ISO rules/specifications for math functions will be relaxed, typically 'errno' will no longer be set after calling some math functions.

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (43.80 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions compiled with -g and -fno-omit-frame-pointer

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. -fno-omit-frame-pointer improve the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

-march=x86-64 option is used but it is not specific enough to produce efficient code.

[ 0 / 2 ] Too much execution time spent in category "Others" (25.65 %)

If the category "Others" represents more than 20% of the execution time, it means that the application profile misses a representative part of the application. Examine functions details to properly identify “Others” category components. Rerun after adding most represented library names (e.g. more than 20% of coverage) to external_libraries (the names can be directly provided by ONE View)

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 0 ] Fastmath not used

Consider to add ffast-math to compilation flags (or replace -O3 with -Ofast) to unlock potential extra speedup by relaxing floating-point computation consistency. Warning: floating-point accuracy may be reduced and the compliance to IEEE/ISO rules/specifications for math functions will be relaxed, typically 'errno' will no longer be set after calling some math functions.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (29.20%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (88.11%)

CPU cores are idle more than 10% of time. Threads supposed to run on these cores are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 167.07% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.83%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (21.29%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (28.12%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (1.08%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (28.12%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.48%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (41.87 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions compiled with -g and -fno-omit-frame-pointer

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

-march=x86-64 option is used but it is not specific enough to produce efficient code.

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 14.55 % of the execution time)

To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 0 ] Fastmath not used

Consider to add ffast-math to compilation flags (or replace -O3 with -Ofast) to unlock potential extra speedup by relaxing floating-point computation consistency. Warning: floating-point accuracy may be reduced and the compliance to IEEE/ISO rules/specifications for math functions will be relaxed, typically 'errno' will no longer be set after calling some math functions.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (22.70%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (85.75%)

CPU cores are idle more than 10% of time. Threads supposed to run on these cores are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 314.67% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.47%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (17.74%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (22.02%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.68%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (22.02%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.26%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (48.22 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions compiled with -g and -fno-omit-frame-pointer

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

-march=x86-64 option is used but it is not specific enough to produce efficient code.

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 6.51 % of the execution time)

To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 0 ] Fastmath not used

Consider to add ffast-math to compilation flags (or replace -O3 with -Ofast) to unlock potential extra speedup by relaxing floating-point computation consistency. Warning: floating-point accuracy may be reduced and the compliance to IEEE/ISO rules/specifications for math functions will be relaxed, typically 'errno' will no longer be set after calling some math functions.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (26.00%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (86.53%)

CPU cores are idle more than 10% of time. Threads supposed to run on these cores are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 632.94% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.54%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (22.45%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (25.58%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.42%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (25.58%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.12%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (55.15 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions compiled with -g and -fno-omit-frame-pointer

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. -fno-omit-frame-pointer improve the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

-march=x86-64 option is used but it is not specific enough to produce efficient code.

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 2.80 % of the execution time)

To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 0 ] Fastmath not used

Consider to add ffast-math to compilation flags (or replace -O3 with -Ofast) to unlock potential extra speedup by relaxing floating-point computation consistency. Warning: floating-point accuracy may be reduced and the compliance to IEEE/ISO rules/specifications for math functions will be relaxed, typically 'errno' will no longer be set after calling some math functions.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (26.81%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (87.85%)

CPU cores are idle more than 10% of time. Threads supposed to run on these cores are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 1283.69% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.67%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (23.93%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (26.56%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.26%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (26.56%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.06%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (56.85 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions compiled with -g and -fno-omit-frame-pointer

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

-march=x86-64 option is used but it is not specific enough to produce efficient code.

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 1.66 % of the execution time)

To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 0 ] Fastmath not used

Consider to add ffast-math to compilation flags (or replace -O3 with -Ofast) to unlock potential extra speedup by relaxing floating-point computation consistency. Warning: floating-point accuracy may be reduced and the compliance to IEEE/ISO rules/specifications for math functions will be relaxed, typically 'errno' will no longer be set after calling some math functions.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (25.09%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (88.07%)

CPU cores are idle more than 10% of time. Threads supposed to run on these cores are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 2105.52% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.68%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (21.87%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (24.80%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.29%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (24.80%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.03%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (80.22 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions compiled with -g and -fno-omit-frame-pointer

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

-march=x86-64 option is used but it is not specific enough to produce efficient code.

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.56 % of the execution time)

To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 0 ] Fastmath not used

Consider to add ffast-math to compilation flags (or replace -O3 with -Ofast) to unlock potential extra speedup by relaxing floating-point computation consistency. Warning: floating-point accuracy may be reduced and the compliance to IEEE/ISO rules/specifications for math functions will be relaxed, typically 'errno' will no longer be set after calling some math functions.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (14.78%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 90.70% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 4439.93% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.06%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (11.92%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (14.56%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.22%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (14.56%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.01%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)