| orig_default | icx_default | gcc_default | aocc_1 | icx_7 | gcc_6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics. | [ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics. | [ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics. | [ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics. | [ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics. | [ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics. |
[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info -g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info -g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info -g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info -g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info -g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info -g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. |
[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling. | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present -fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling. |
[ 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 | [ 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 | [ 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 | [ 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 |
[ 3.00 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (100.00%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=native | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (100.00%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=native | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (100.00%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=znver4 | [ 3.00 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (100.00%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=znver4 | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (100.00%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=znver4 | [ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (100.00%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=znver4 |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (13.70 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 (14.31 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 (14.26 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 (13.51 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 (14.27 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 (14.27 s) To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds. |
[ 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 | Not available for this run | Not available for this run |
[ 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. | [ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated. | [ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated. |
| orig_default | icx_default | gcc_default | aocc_1 | icx_7 | gcc_6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 94.18% of time | [ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 96.10% of time | [ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 94.30% of time | [ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 95.21% of time | [ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 96.18% of time | [ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good CPU cores are active 94.30% of time |
[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (94.14%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (95.31%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (94.61%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (95.23%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (95.41%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (94.27%) 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 (13.53%). 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 (6.47%) | [ 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 (5.85%) | [ 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 (12.17%). 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 (6.42%) | [ 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 (6.05%) |
[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (79.17%) 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 (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (94.95%) 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 (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (96.92%) 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 (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (79.41%) 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 (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (95.06%) 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 (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (96.84%) 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 92.65% of observed threads are actually active | [ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 94.67% of observed threads are actually active | [ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 93.32% of observed threads are actually active | [ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 93.67% of observed threads are actually active | [ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 94.76% of observed threads are actually active | [ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good On average, more than 93.32% 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. | [ 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 (79.17%) 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 (94.95%) 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 (96.92%) 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 (79.41%) 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. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (95.06%) 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 (96.84%) 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 | [ 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) | [ 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% (28.81%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (26.96%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (27.52%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (28.92%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (26.95%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (27.47%), representing an hotspot for the application |
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (79.17%) 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 (94.95%) 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 (96.92%) 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 (79.41%) 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 (95.06%) 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 (96.84%) 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 | r4 | r5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loop Computation Issues | Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Data Access Issues | Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Presence of special instructions executing on a single port | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Vectorization Roadblocks | Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Inefficient Vectorization | Presence of special instructions executing on a single port | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Use of masked instructions | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |