Help is available by moving the cursor above any 
symbol or by checking MAQAO website.
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (19.32 s)
To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.
[ 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used
[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.
[ 3 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -march=znver is used
[ 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
[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (78.04%)
If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.
[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good
On average, more than 98.08% of observed threads are actually active
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good
CPU cores are active 98.32% of time
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (28.51%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (78.04%)
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 ] Affinity is good (98.30%)
Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned
[ 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 ] Functions mostly use all threads
Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover less than 10% of application walltime (4.44%)
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (78.04%)
Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex
[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)
| Loop ID | Analysis | Penalty Score |
|---|---|---|
| ○Loop 10 - exec | Execution Time: 28 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop 8 - exec | Execution Time: 28 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Loop 6 - exec | Execution Time: 20 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Loop 15 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Inefficient Vectorization | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Inefficient vectorization: use of masked instructions - Simplify control structure. The issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Loop 5 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ○Loop 2 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % |
[ 0 / 4 ] Application profile is too short (9.97 s)
If the overall application profiling time is less than 10 seconds, many of the measurements at function or loop level will very likely be under the measurement quality threshold (0,1 seconds).
Rerun to increase runtime duration: for example use a larger dataset or include a repetition loop.
[ 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used
[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.
[ 3 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -march=znver is used
[ 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
[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (75.48%)
If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.
[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good
On average, more than 760.42% of observed threads are actually active
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good
CPU cores are active 95.72% of time
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (28.43%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (75.48%)
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 ] Affinity is good (95.67%)
Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned
[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations
It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations
[ 0 / 3 ] Too many functions do not use all threads
Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover at least 10% of application walltime (21.28%). Check both "Max Inclusive Time Over Threads" and "Nb Threads" in Functions or Loops tabs and consider parallelizing sequential regions or improving parallelization of regions running on a reduced number of threads
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (75.48%)
Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex
[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)
| Loop ID | Analysis | Penalty Score |
|---|---|---|
| ►Loop 8 - exec | Execution Time: 28 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ○Loop 10 - exec | Execution Time: 27 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop 6 - exec | Execution Time: 19 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Loop 5 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Loop 15 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Inefficient Vectorization | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Inefficient vectorization: use of masked instructions - Simplify control structure. The issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ○Loop 2 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % |
[ 0 / 4 ] Application profile is too short (9.74 s)
If the overall application profiling time is less than 10 seconds, many of the measurements at function or loop level will very likely be under the measurement quality threshold (0,1 seconds).
Rerun to increase runtime duration: for example use a larger dataset or include a repetition loop.
[ 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used
[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.
[ 3 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -march=znver is used
[ 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
[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (80.52%)
If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.
[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good
On average, more than 1137.24% of observed threads are actually active
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good
CPU cores are active 95.52% of time
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (29.35%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (80.52%)
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 ] Affinity is good (95.47%)
Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned
[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations
It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations
[ 0 / 3 ] Too many functions do not use all threads
Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover at least 10% of application walltime (14.06%). Check both "Max Inclusive Time Over Threads" and "Nb Threads" in Functions or Loops tabs and consider parallelizing sequential regions or improving parallelization of regions running on a reduced number of threads
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (80.52%)
Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex
[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)
| Loop ID | Analysis | Penalty Score |
|---|---|---|
| ►Loop 8 - exec | Execution Time: 29 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ○Loop 10 - exec | Execution Time: 29 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop 6 - exec | Execution Time: 21 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Loop 5 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Loop 15 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Inefficient Vectorization | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Inefficient vectorization: use of masked instructions - Simplify control structure. The issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ○Loop 2 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (10.17 s)
To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.
[ 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used
[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.
[ 3 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -march=znver is used
[ 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
[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (75.49%)
If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.
[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good
On average, more than 1518.89% of observed threads are actually active
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good
CPU cores are active 95.74% of time
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (27.52%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (75.49%)
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 ] Affinity is good (95.69%)
Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned
[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations
It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations
[ 0 / 3 ] Too many functions do not use all threads
Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover at least 10% of application walltime (14.39%). Check both "Max Inclusive Time Over Threads" and "Nb Threads" in Functions or Loops tabs and consider parallelizing sequential regions or improving parallelization of regions running on a reduced number of threads
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (75.49%)
Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex
[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)
| Loop ID | Analysis | Penalty Score |
|---|---|---|
| ►Loop 8 - exec | Execution Time: 27 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ○Loop 10 - exec | Execution Time: 27 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop 6 - exec | Execution Time: 20 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Loop 5 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ○Loop 2 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop 15 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Inefficient Vectorization | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Inefficient vectorization: use of masked instructions - Simplify control structure. The issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (10.27 s)
To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.
[ 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used
[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.
[ 3 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -march=znver is used
[ 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
[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (75.34%)
If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.
[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good
On average, more than 1896.64% of observed threads are actually active
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good
CPU cores are active 95.74% of time
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (27.33%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (75.34%)
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 ] Affinity is good (95.74%)
Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned
[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations
It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations
[ 0 / 3 ] Too many functions do not use all threads
Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover at least 10% of application walltime (22.72%). Check both "Max Inclusive Time Over Threads" and "Nb Threads" in Functions or Loops tabs and consider parallelizing sequential regions or improving parallelization of regions running on a reduced number of threads
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (75.34%)
Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex
[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)
| Loop ID | Analysis | Penalty Score |
|---|---|---|
| ►Loop 8 - exec | Execution Time: 27 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ○Loop 10 - exec | Execution Time: 27 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop 6 - exec | Execution Time: 20 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Loop 5 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ○Loop 2 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop 15 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Inefficient Vectorization | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Inefficient vectorization: use of masked instructions - Simplify control structure. The issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
[ 0 / 4 ] Application profile is too short (9.89 s)
If the overall application profiling time is less than 10 seconds, many of the measurements at function or loop level will very likely be under the measurement quality threshold (0,1 seconds).
Rerun to increase runtime duration: for example use a larger dataset or include a repetition loop.
[ 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used
[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.
[ 3 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -march=znver is used
[ 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
[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (80.17%)
If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.
[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good
On average, more than 2269.17% of observed threads are actually active
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good
CPU cores are active 95.56% of time
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (29.33%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (80.17%)
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 ] Affinity is good (95.51%)
Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned
[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations
It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations
[ 0 / 3 ] Too many functions do not use all threads
Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover at least 10% of application walltime (10.31%). Check both "Max Inclusive Time Over Threads" and "Nb Threads" in Functions or Loops tabs and consider parallelizing sequential regions or improving parallelization of regions running on a reduced number of threads
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (80.17%)
Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex
[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)
| Loop ID | Analysis | Penalty Score |
|---|---|---|
| ►Loop 8 - exec | Execution Time: 29 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ○Loop 10 - exec | Execution Time: 29 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop 6 - exec | Execution Time: 21 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Loop 5 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ○Loop 2 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop 15 - exec | Execution Time: 0 % - Vectorization Ratio: 100.00 % - Vector Length Use: 50.00 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA - Reorganize arithmetic expressions to exhibit potential for FMA. This issue costs 4 points. | 4 |
| ►Inefficient Vectorization | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Inefficient vectorization: use of masked instructions - Simplify control structure. The issue costs 2 points. | 2 |