[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (109.69 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 0 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 100.00% of the time spent in analyzed modules. Check that -g is present. Remark: if -g is indeed used, this can also be due to some compiler built-in functions (typically math) or statically linked libraries. This warning can be ignored in that case.

[ 0 / 3 ] Some functions are compiled with a low optimization level (O0 or O1)

To have better performances, it is advised to help the compiler by using a proper optimization level (-O2 of higher). Warning, depending on compilers, faster optimization levels can decrease numeric accuracy.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 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) ).

[ 0 / 2 ] Too much execution time spent in category "Others" (83.53 %)

If the category "Others" represents more than 20% of the execution time, it means that the application profile misses a representative part of the application. Examine functions details to properly identify “Others” category components. Rerun after adding most represented library names (e.g. more than 20% of coverage) to external_libraries (the names can be directly provided by ONE View)

[ 0 / 1 ] Lstopo was not found on the host (either not installed or not loaded). The Topology lstopo report will not be generated.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (13.42%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 94.49% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 94.49% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (97.99%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 0 / 4 ] Loop profile is flat

No hotspot found in the application (greatest loop coverage is 2.29%), and the twenty hottest loops cumulated coverage is lower than 20% of the application profiled time (11.24%)

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (9.95%)

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 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (3.46%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (9.95%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 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 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)