spmxv-gcc-o3.exe | spmxv-gcc-ofast.exe | spmxv-acfl-o3.exe | spmxv-acfl-ofast.exe |
---|---|---|---|
[ 2 / 3 ] Security settings from the host restrict profiling. Some metrics will be missing or incomplete. Current value for kernel.perf_event_paranoid is 2. If possible, set it to 1 or check with your system administrator which flag can be used to achieve this. | [ 2 / 3 ] Security settings from the host restrict profiling. Some metrics will be missing or incomplete. Current value for kernel.perf_event_paranoid is 2. If possible, set it to 1 or check with your system administrator which flag can be used to achieve this. | [ 2 / 3 ] Security settings from the host restrict profiling. Some metrics will be missing or incomplete. Current value for kernel.perf_event_paranoid is 2. If possible, set it to 1 or check with your system administrator which flag can be used to achieve this. | [ 2 / 3 ] Security settings from the host restrict profiling. Some metrics will be missing or incomplete. Current value for kernel.perf_event_paranoid is 2. If possible, set it to 1 or check with your system administrator which flag can be used to achieve this. |
[ 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 | Not available for this run |
[ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -mcpu is used | [ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -mcpu is used | [ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -march=native is used | [ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -march=native is used |
[ 3.00 / 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. | [ 3.00 / 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. | [ 3.00 / 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. | [ 3.00 / 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. |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (33.93 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 (33.11 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 (22.74 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 (23.10 s) To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds. |
[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.04 % 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 0.04 % 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 0.06 % 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 0.05 % 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 |
[ 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. |
spmxv-gcc-o3.exe | spmxv-gcc-ofast.exe | spmxv-acfl-o3.exe | spmxv-acfl-ofast.exe |
---|---|---|---|
[ 1 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (36.83%) 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. | [ 1 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (35.37%) 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. | [ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (88.32%) 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. | [ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (88.44%) 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 ] Affinity is good (97.80%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (97.83%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.91%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.92%) 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 (2.37%) | [ 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 (2.38%) | [ 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 (9.17%) | [ 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 (8.98%) |
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (1.70%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (38.72%) 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 (3.86%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (34.96%) 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 (3.13%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (62.95%) 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 (5.33%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (61.22%) Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex |
[ 1 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (63.18%) On average, more than 10% of observed threads are idle. Such threads are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling. | [ 1 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (64.64%) On average, more than 10% of observed threads are idle. Such threads are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling. | [ 3 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (11.75%) On average, more than 10% of observed threads are idle. Such threads are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling. | [ 3 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (11.64%) On average, more than 10% of observed threads are idle. Such threads are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling. |
[ 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 (38.72%) 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 (34.96%) 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 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (62.95%) 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. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (61.22%) 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% (38.71%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (28.57%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (62.95%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (55.70%), representing an hotspot for the application |
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (40.42%) If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (38.82%) If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (66.09%) 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 (66.55%) 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 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
Control Flow Issues | Presence of 2 to 4 paths | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Non-innermost loop | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Data Access Issues | Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Presence of indirect access | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
Vectorization Roadblocks | Presence of 2 to 4 paths | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Presence of more than 4 paths | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Non-innermost loop | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
Presence of indirect access | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |