[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (45.62 s)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 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 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 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.

[ 0 / 2 ] Too much execution time spent in category "Others" (43.73 %)

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)

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (42.79 s)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 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 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 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.

[ 0 / 2 ] Too much execution time spent in category "Others" (26.52 %)

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)

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 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 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (28.34%)

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

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (87.89%)

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 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 166.55% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.80%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (20.55%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (25.70%)

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 (2.64%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (25.70%)

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% (0.44%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (41.52 s)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 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 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 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.

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 14.65 % 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.

[ 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 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (22.93%)

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

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (84.78%)

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 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 309.21% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.45%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (18.29%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (21.30%)

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 (1.64%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (21.30%)

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% (0.25%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (47.25 s)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 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 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 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.

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 6.68 % 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.

[ 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 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (26.80%)

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

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (86.00%)

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 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 628.39% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.50%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (23.46%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (25.95%)

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 (0.85%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (25.95%)

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% (0.14%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (54.05 s)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 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 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 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.

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 2.81 % 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.

[ 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 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (25.99%)

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

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (87.41%)

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 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 1285.36% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.64%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (23.13%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (25.56%)

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 (0.44%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (25.56%)

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% (0.05%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (55.95 s)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 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 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 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.

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 1.69 % 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.

[ 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 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (25.81%)

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

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (87.85%)

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 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 2099.66% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.66%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (22.62%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (25.41%)

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.

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.40%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (25.41%)

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% (0.03%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (66.28 s)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 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 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 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.

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.71 % 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.

[ 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 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (18.62%)

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

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (88.48%)

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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 4260.22% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (98.87%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (13.95%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (18.30%)

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 (0.32%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (18.30%)

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% (0.01%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)