Help is available by moving the cursor above any 
symbol or by checking MAQAO website.
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (162.19 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=native 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 (100.00%)
If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.
[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good
On average, more than 99.78% of observed threads are actually active
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good
CPU cores are active 99.78% of time
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (75.43%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (81.13%)
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 (99.97%)
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 (0.00%)
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (18.86%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (81.13%)
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 9 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 75 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.61 % | |
| ►Loop 8 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 18 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 16.07 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Control Flow Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [SA] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 8 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [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] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Loop 6 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 5 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.75 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 6 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (85.83 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=native 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 (97.72%)
If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.
[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good
On average, more than 193.10% of observed threads are actually active
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good
CPU cores are active 96.55% of time
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (72.99%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (78.55%)
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 ] Affinity is good (99.85%)
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 (15.14%). 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 (19.17%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (78.55%)
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 9 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 72 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.61 % | |
| ►Loop 8 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 19 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 16.07 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Control Flow Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [SA] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 8 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [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] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Loop 6 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 5 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.75 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 6 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (47.64 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=native 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 (93.42%)
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 364.51% of observed threads are actually active
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good
CPU cores are active 91.14% of time
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (70.65%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (75.96%)
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 (99.64%)
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 (27.68%). 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 (17.46%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (75.96%)
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 9 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 70 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.61 % | |
| ►Loop 8 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 17 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 16.07 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Control Flow Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [SA] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 8 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [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] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Loop 6 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 5 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.75 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 6 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (28.53 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=native 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 (85.82%)
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 664.73% of observed threads are actually active
[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (83.12%)
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 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (64.80%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (69.67%)
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 (99.33%)
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 (34.68%). 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 (16.15%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (69.67%)
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 9 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 64 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.61 % | |
| ►Loop 8 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 16 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 16.07 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Control Flow Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [SA] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 8 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [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] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Loop 6 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 4 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.75 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 6 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (18.95 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=native 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 (74.22%)
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 1162.30% of observed threads are actually active
[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (72.68%)
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 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (56.13%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (60.32%)
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 (98.93%)
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 (71.31%). 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 (13.90%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (60.32%)
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 9 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 56 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.61 % | |
| ►Loop 8 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 13 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 16.07 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Control Flow Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [SA] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 8 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [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] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Loop 6 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 4 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.75 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 6 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (14.15 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=native 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 (58.42%)
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 1984.83% of observed threads are actually active
[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (62.09%)
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 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (44.13%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (47.41%)
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 (98.50%)
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 (94.52%). 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 (11.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (47.41%)
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 9 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 44 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.61 % | |
| ►Loop 8 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 11 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 16.07 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Control Flow Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [SA] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 8 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [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] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Loop 6 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 3 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.75 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 6 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (12.54 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=native 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 (48.27%)
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 2713.22% of observed threads are actually active
[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (56.60%)
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 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (36.36%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (39.07%)
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 (98.28%)
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 (79.15%). 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 (9.20%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (39.07%)
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 9 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 36 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.61 % | |
| ►Loop 8 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 9 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 16.07 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Control Flow Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [SA] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 8 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [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] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Loop 6 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 2 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.75 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 6 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (11.77 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=native 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 (40.85%)
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 3409.79% of observed threads are actually active
[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (53.36%)
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 ] Loop profile is not flat
At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (30.87%), representing an hotspot for the application
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (33.17%)
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 (98.12%)
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 (84.69%). 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 (7.68%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (33.17%)
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 9 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 30 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.61 % | |
| ►Loop 8 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 7 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 16.07 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 2 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Control Flow Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [SA] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 4 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 8 | |
| ○ | [SA] Several paths (2 paths) - Simplify control structure or force the compiler to use masked instructions. There are 2 issues ( = paths) costing 1 point each. | 2 |
| ○ | [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] Non innermost loop (InBetween) - Collapse loop with innermost ones. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Loop 6 - kmeans-acfl-Ofast-soa | Execution Time: 2 % - Vectorization Ratio: 0.00 % - Vector Length Use: 23.75 % | |
| ►Loop Computation Issues | 6 | |
| ○ | [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 |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions - Simplify loop structure, perform loop splitting or perform unroll and jam. This issue costs 2 points. | 2 |
| ►Data Access Issues | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |
| ►Vectorization Roadblocks | 12 | |
| ○ | [SA] Presence of indirect accesses - Use array restructuring or gather instructions to lower the cost. There are 3 issues ( = indirect data accesses) costing 4 point each. | 12 |