| orig_default | gcc_default | armclang_1 | 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. |
[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info -g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info -g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info -g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info -g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. |
[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling. |
[ 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 |
[ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -march=native is used | [ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -mcpu is used | [ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -mcpu is used | [ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -mcpu is used |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (265.57 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 (266.66 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 (266.88 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 (266.44 s) To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds. |
[ 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 / 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. | Not available for this run | Not available for this run |
[ 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 | armclang_1 | gcc_5 |
|---|---|---|---|
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 99.93% of time | [ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 99.78% of time | [ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 99.94% of time | [ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 99.76% of time |
[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.99%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.94%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.99%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.94%) 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 (1.41%) | [ 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 (1.01%) | [ 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 (1.63%) | [ 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 (1.02%) |
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.07%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (96.65%) 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 (0.20%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (96.98%) 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 (0.47%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (96.55%) 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 (0.17%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (96.91%) Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex |
[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 99.92% of observed threads are actually active | [ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 99.78% of observed threads are actually active | [ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 99.93% of observed threads are actually active | [ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 99.75% of observed threads are actually active |
[ 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 (96.65%) 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 (96.98%) 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 (96.55%) 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 (96.91%) 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% (43.27%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (43.21%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (43.16%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (43.45%), representing an hotspot for the application |
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (96.72%) 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 (97.18%) 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 (97.02%) 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 (97.08%) 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 | Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
| Control Flow Issues | Presence of 2 to 4 paths | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Presence of more than 4 paths | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | |
| Non-innermost loop | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Data Access Issues | Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 5 | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| Vectorization Roadblocks | Presence of 2 to 4 paths | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Presence of more than 4 paths | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | |
| Non-innermost loop | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 5 | 8 | 4 | 4 | |