********************************************************************************
MAQAO 2.20.7 - b5c28035168f9cf8f9fa5fd6efe26ed8c52734e3::20240731-202858 || 2024/07/31
/home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 OV -R1 c=config_MPI_scal.json xp=OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc -WS=strong
CPY: [true] ../../install_gcc/bin/gmx_mpi --> /home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/binaries/gmx_mpi
CPY: [true] /home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/install_gcc/lib64/libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 --> /home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/libs/libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/tools/lprof_npsu_run_0" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 192" --collect-topology ppn=192 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_gcc/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/tools/lprof_npsu_run_1" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 1" --collect-topology ppn=1 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_gcc/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/tools/lprof_npsu_run_2" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 2" --collect-topology ppn=2 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_gcc/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/tools/lprof_npsu_run_3" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 4" --collect-topology ppn=4 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_gcc/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/tools/lprof_npsu_run_4" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 8" --collect-topology ppn=8 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_gcc/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/tools/lprof_npsu_run_5" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 16" --collect-topology ppn=16 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_gcc/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/tools/lprof_npsu_run_6" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 32" --collect-topology ppn=32 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_gcc/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/tools/lprof_npsu_run_7" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 64" --collect-topology ppn=64 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_gcc/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
CMD: OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 /home/eoseret/maqao_2.20.7 lprof _caller=oneview --xp="/home/eoseret/gromacs-2024.2/tests/ion/OV1_ZEN4_10K_MPI_scal_gcc/tools/lprof_npsu_run_8" --mpi-command="mpirun -genv I_MPI_FABRICS=shm -n 128" --collect-topology ppn=128 -ldi=libgromacs_mpi.so.9.0.0 -- ../../install_gcc/bin/gmx_mpi mdrun -s ion_channel.tpr -nsteps 10000 -pin on -deffnm aocc
In run 192x1, 285 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.60111811563547% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
413 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.6863710895268% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 1x1, 108 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.29939396458212% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
16 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.023126465268433% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 2x1, 132 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.37311144289561% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
10 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.0057312882854603% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 4x1, 134 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.35649847006425% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
16 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.017694681650028% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 8x1, 158 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.40093220004928% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
17 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.0096357857692055% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 16x1, 176 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.44393408345059% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
23 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.010013311140938% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 32x1, 212 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.4591586375318% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
25 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.0085497965337709% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 64x1, 219 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.49453158320102% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
30 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.0099143535626354% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
In run 128x1, 266 loops were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.58564892527647% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
48 functions were discarded from static analysis because their coverage
are lower than object_coverage_threshold value (0.01%).
That represents 0.015356102245278% of the execution time. To include them, change the value
in the experiment directory configuration file, then rerun the command with the additionnal parameter
--force-static-analysis
