Neoverse GCC Ofast | Neoverse ACFL Ofast |
---|---|
[ 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 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor Application run on the ARM_NEOVERSE_V2 micro-architecture while the code was specialized for armv8.5-a+crypto+rng+sve2-aes+sve2-sha3+sve2-bitperm+i8mm+bf16+nossbs+nopredres. Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -mcpu=native ). | [ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -mcpu is used |
[ 2.40 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 0.06% 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. | [ 2.40 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g and -grecord-gcc-switches) cumulate 0.10% of the time spent in analyzed modules. Check that -g and (-grecord-gcc-switches or -frecord-command-line) are present. Remark: if -g and (-grecord-gcc-switches / -frecord-command-line) are 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. |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (12.82 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 (11.77 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 0.00 % 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 | [ 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 |
[ 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. |
Neoverse GCC Ofast | Neoverse ACFL Ofast |
---|---|
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 99.85% of time | [ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 96.77% of time |
[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.94%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.87%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned |
[ 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 (12.22%). 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 ] Functions mostly use all threads Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover less than 10% of application walltime (5.22%) |
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (27.30%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (55.70%) 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 (30.49%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (51.81%) Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex |
[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 4781.05% of observed threads are actually active | [ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 4630.73% of observed threads are actually active |
[ 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 (55.70%) 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. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (51.81%) 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 |
[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.51%) 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% (26.34%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (22.34%), representing an hotspot for the application |
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (83.00%) If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (82.30%) 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 | |
---|---|---|---|
Loop Computation Issues | Presence of expensive FP instructions | 1 | 1 |
Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA | 6 | 7 | |
Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions | 1 | 2 | |
Control Flow Issues | Presence of calls | 1 | 0 |
Presence of more than 4 paths | 2 | 0 | |
Non-innermost loop | 2 | 3 | |
Data Access Issues | Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 1 | 0 |
Vectorization Roadblocks | Presence of calls | 1 | 0 |
Presence of more than 4 paths | 2 | 3 | |
Non-innermost loop | 2 | 3 | |
Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 1 | 0 |