********************************************************************************
MAQAO 2.20.7 - b5c28035168f9cf8f9fa5fd6efe26ed8c52734e3::20240731-202858 || 2024/07/31
/home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 OV -R1 c=config_MPI_scal.json xp=OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx -WS=strong
CPY: [true] ../../install_icx/bin/gmx_mpi --> /home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/binaries/gmx_mpi
CPY: [true] /home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/install_icx/lib64/libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 --> /home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/libs/libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/tools/lprof_npsu_run_0" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 192" --collect-topology ppn=192 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_icx/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/tools/lprof_npsu_run_1" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 1" --collect-topology ppn=1 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_icx/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/tools/lprof_npsu_run_2" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 2" --collect-topology ppn=2 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_icx/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/tools/lprof_npsu_run_3" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 4" --collect-topology ppn=4 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_icx/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/tools/lprof_npsu_run_4" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 8" --collect-topology ppn=8 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_icx/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/tools/lprof_npsu_run_5" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 16" --collect-topology ppn=16 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_icx/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/tools/lprof_npsu_run_6" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 32" --collect-topology ppn=32 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_icx/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/tools/lprof_npsu_run_7" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 64" --collect-topology ppn=64 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_icx/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_icx/tools/lprof_npsu_run_8" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 128" --collect-topology ppn=128 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_icx/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
In run 192x1, 286 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.57739895394479% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
402 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.68400942419248% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 1x1, 111 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.30120589653961% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
14 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.013719523441978% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 2x1, 131 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.32877313840436% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
10 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.006861378904432% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 4x1, 151 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.35305830440484% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
12 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.016118879953865% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 8x1, 173 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.37868781664292% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
13 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.0092260341043585% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 16x1, 198 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.42775731679285% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
21 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.010504774720175% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 32x1, 226 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.47515855092206% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
17 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.0057633883552626% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 64x1, 252 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.45852102106437% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
29 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.0079303537786473% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 128x1, 271 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.55953854249674% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
51 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.01356143184239% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
