| orig_default | gcc_default | icx_9 | gcc_5 |
|---|---|---|---|
[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics. | [ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics. | [ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics. | [ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics. |
[ 2.99 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -x Host is used | [ 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. Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ). | [ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ). Application run on the GRANITE_RAPIDS micro-architecture while the code was specialized for GRANITERAPIDS. | [ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor Application run on the GRANITE_RAPIDS micro-architecture while the code was specialized for graniterapids. Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ). |
[ 2.99 / 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. | [ 3.00 / 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. | [ 2.99 / 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. | [ 3.00 / 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. |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (122.15 s) To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds. | [ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (204.20 s) To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds. | [ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (120.23 s) To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds. | [ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (208.29 s) To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds. |
[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.00 % 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 | [ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.00 % 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 | [ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.00 % 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 | [ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.00 % 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 |
[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used | [ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used | [ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used | [ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used |
[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated. | [ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated. | [ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated. | [ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated. |
| orig_default | gcc_default | icx_9 | gcc_5 |
|---|---|---|---|
[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (81.39%) 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. | [ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (80.48%) 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. | [ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (81.74%) 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. | [ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (78.41%) 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 ] Affinity is good (91.84%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (95.56%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (91.92%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (95.44%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned |
[ 3 / 3 ] Functions mostly use all threads Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover less than 10% of application walltime (0.00%) | [ 3 / 3 ] Functions mostly use all threads Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover less than 10% of application walltime (0.00%) | [ 3 / 3 ] Functions mostly use all threads Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover less than 10% of application walltime (0.00%) | [ 3 / 3 ] Functions mostly use all threads Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover less than 10% of application walltime (0.00%) |
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (2.86%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (72.40%) Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex | [ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (1.81%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (50.19%) Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex | [ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (2.73%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (73.83%) Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex | [ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (2.41%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (47.73%) Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex |
[ 3 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (18.97%) On average, more than 10% of observed threads are idle. Such threads are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling. | [ 3 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (19.76%) On average, more than 10% of observed threads are idle. Such threads are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling. | [ 3 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (18.62%) On average, more than 10% of observed threads are idle. Such threads are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling. | [ 3 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (21.82%) On average, more than 10% of observed threads are idle. Such threads are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling. |
[ 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% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining. | [ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining. | [ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining. |
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (72.40%) 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. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (50.19%) 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. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (73.83%) 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. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (47.73%) 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% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations | [ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations | [ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations | [ 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 Libm/SVML (special functions) | [ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions) | [ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions) | [ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions) |
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (34.15%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (23.59%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (34.84%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (22.14%), representing an hotspot for the application |
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (75.26%) If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (52.00%) If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (76.56%) If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (50.15%) If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances. |
| Analysis | r0 | r1 | r2 | r3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loop Computation Issues | Presence of expensive FP instructions | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA | 0 | 7 | 0 | 1 | |
| Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | |
| Control Flow Issues | Presence of calls | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Presence of 2 to 4 paths | 4 | 3 | 4 | 0 | |
| Presence of more than 4 paths | 6 | 7 | 6 | 10 | |
| Non-innermost loop | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Data Access Issues | Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 4 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
| Presence of indirect access | 4 | 3 | 4 | 0 | |
| More than 10% of the vector loads instructions are unaligned | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | |
| Presence of special instructions executing on a single port | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | |
| More than 20% of the loads are accessing the stack | 5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | |
| Vectorization Roadblocks | Presence of calls | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Presence of 2 to 4 paths | 4 | 3 | 4 | 0 | |
| Presence of more than 4 paths | 6 | 7 | 6 | 10 | |
| Non-innermost loop | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 4 | 3 | 4 | 0 | |
| Presence of indirect access | 4 | 3 | 4 | 0 | |
| Inefficient Vectorization | Presence of special instructions executing on a single port | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 |