Help is available by moving the cursor above any 
symbol or by checking MAQAO website.
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (20.13 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 ] Architecture specific option -march=sapphirerapids is used
[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0 % 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
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (89.71%)
If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (89.65%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (89.71%)
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 ] Less than 10% (0%) is spend in BLAS1 operations
It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (89.71%)
Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex
[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)
[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0%) is spend in BLAS2 operations
BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.
| Loop ID | Module | Analysis | Penalty Score | Coverage (%) | Vectorization Ratio (%) | Vector Length Use (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ○3 | exec | Partial or unexisting vectorization - No issue detected | 0 | 89.65 | 0 | 0 |
| ○0 | exec | Partial or unexisting vectorization - No issue detected | 0 | 0.04 | 0 | 6.25 |
| ►2 | exec | Partial or unexisting vectorization - Use pragma to force vectorization and check potential dependencies between array access. | 5 | 0.02 | 0 | 6.25 |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of constant non unit stride data access - Use array restructuring, perform loop interchange or use gather instructions to lower a bit the cost. There are 2 issues ( = data accesses) costing 2 point each. | 4 | ||||
| ○ | [SA] Presence of calls - Inline either by compiler or by hand and use SVML for libm calls. There are 1 issues (= calls) costing 1 point each. | 1 |