OV - exec - Loop 2

0x203140 MOV	%RCX,0x8(%RAX,%R12,8)    [1]

0x203145 MOV	%RSI,0x8(%RDX,%R12,8)    [2]

0x20314a INC	%R12

0x20314d CMP	%R15,%R12

0x203150 JL	203140

/beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/gmz17.benchmarkcenter.megware.com/177-365-4625/stream-scale/build/stream-scale/src/stream.c: 272 - 274

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

272:     for (j=0; j<STREAM_ARRAY_SIZE; j++) {

273: 	    a[j] = 1.0;

274: 	    b[j] = 2.0;

Coverage (%)	Name	Source Location	Module
►100.00+	__kmp_invoke_microtask		libomp.so
○	__kmp_invoke_task_func		libomp.so

Coverage (%)	Name	Source Location	Module
►100.00+	__kmp_invoke_microtask		libomp.so
○	__kmp_invoke_task_func		libomp.so

Coverage (%)	Name	Source Location	Module
►99.51+	__kmp_invoke_microtask		libomp.so
○	__kmp_invoke_task_func		libomp.so

Coverage (%)	Name	Source Location	Module
►99.51+	__kmp_invoke_microtask		libomp.so
○	__kmp_invoke_task_func		libomp.so

Coverage (%)	Name	Source Location	Module
►99.70+	__kmp_invoke_microtask		libomp.so
○	__kmp_invoke_task_func		libomp.so

Coverage (%)	Name	Source Location	Module
►100.00+	__kmp_invoke_microtask		libomp.so
○	__kmp_invoke_task_func		libomp.so

min	med	avg	max

Percentile Index	10	20	30	40	50	60	70	80	90	100
Value

min	med	avg	max

Percentile Index	10	20	30	40	50	60	70	80	90	100
Value

Path /

Metric	Value
CQA speedup if no scalar integer	1.00
CQA speedup if FP arith vectorized	1.00
CQA speedup if fully vectorized	8.00
CQA speedup if no inter-iteration dependency	NA
CQA speedup if next bottleneck killed	2.00
Bottlenecks
Function	main.omp_outlined.14
Source	stream.c:272-274
Source loop unroll info	not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop
Source loop unroll confidence level	max
Unroll/vectorization loop type	NA
Unroll factor	NA
CQA cycles	1.00
CQA cycles if no scalar integer	1.00
CQA cycles if FP arith vectorized	1.00
CQA cycles if fully vectorized	0.13
Front-end cycles	0.50
P0 cycles	0.33
P1 cycles	0.33
P2 cycles	0.33
P3 cycles	0.33
P4 cycles	0.33
P5 cycles	0.33
P6 cycles	0.50
P7 cycles	0.50
P8 cycles	0.50
P9 cycles	0.50
P10 cycles	0.00
P11 cycles	0.00
P12 cycles	0.00
P13 cycles	0.00
P14 cycles	0.00
P15 cycles	0.00
DIV/SQRT cycles	0.00
Inter-iter dependencies cycles	1
FE+BE cycles (UFS)	NA
Stall cycles (UFS)	NA
Nb insns	5.00
Nb uops	4.00
Nb loads	0.00
Nb stores	2.00
Nb stack references	0.00
FLOP/cycle	0.00
Nb FLOP add-sub	0.00
Nb FLOP mul	0.00
Nb FLOP fma	0.00
Nb FLOP div	0.00
Nb FLOP rcp	0.00
Nb FLOP sqrt	0.00
Nb FLOP rsqrt	0.00
Bytes/cycle	16.00
Bytes prefetched	0.00
Bytes loaded	0.00
Bytes stored	16.00
Stride 0	0.00
Stride 1	2.00
Stride n	0.00
Stride unknown	0.00
Stride indirect	0.00
Vectorization ratio all	0.00
Vectorization ratio load	NA
Vectorization ratio store	0.00
Vectorization ratio mul	NA
Vectorization ratio add_sub	NA
Vectorization ratio fma	NA
Vectorization ratio div_sqrt	NA
Vectorization ratio other	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio all	12.50
Vector-efficiency ratio load	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio store	12.50
Vector-efficiency ratio mul	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio add_sub	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio fma	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio div_sqrt	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio other	NA

Metric	Value
CQA speedup if no scalar integer	1.00
CQA speedup if FP arith vectorized	1.00
CQA speedup if fully vectorized	8.00
CQA speedup if no inter-iteration dependency	NA
CQA speedup if next bottleneck killed	2.00
Bottlenecks
Function	main.omp_outlined.14
Source	stream.c:272-274
Source loop unroll info	not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop
Source loop unroll confidence level	max
Unroll/vectorization loop type	NA
Unroll factor	NA
CQA cycles	1.00
CQA cycles if no scalar integer	1.00
CQA cycles if FP arith vectorized	1.00
CQA cycles if fully vectorized	0.13
Front-end cycles	0.50
P0 cycles	0.33
P1 cycles	0.33
P2 cycles	0.33
P3 cycles	0.33
P4 cycles	0.33
P5 cycles	0.33
P6 cycles	0.50
P7 cycles	0.50
P8 cycles	0.50
P9 cycles	0.50
P10 cycles	0.00
P11 cycles	0.00
P12 cycles	0.00
P13 cycles	0.00
P14 cycles	0.00
P15 cycles	0.00
DIV/SQRT cycles	0.00
Inter-iter dependencies cycles	1
FE+BE cycles (UFS)	NA
Stall cycles (UFS)	NA
Nb insns	5.00
Nb uops	4.00
Nb loads	0.00
Nb stores	2.00
Nb stack references	0.00
FLOP/cycle	0.00
Nb FLOP add-sub	0.00
Nb FLOP mul	0.00
Nb FLOP fma	0.00
Nb FLOP div	0.00
Nb FLOP rcp	0.00
Nb FLOP sqrt	0.00
Nb FLOP rsqrt	0.00
Bytes/cycle	16.00
Bytes prefetched	0.00
Bytes loaded	0.00
Bytes stored	16.00
Stride 0	0.00
Stride 1	2.00
Stride n	0.00
Stride unknown	0.00
Stride indirect	0.00
Vectorization ratio all	0.00
Vectorization ratio load	NA
Vectorization ratio store	0.00
Vectorization ratio mul	NA
Vectorization ratio add_sub	NA
Vectorization ratio fma	NA
Vectorization ratio div_sqrt	NA
Vectorization ratio other	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio all	12.50
Vector-efficiency ratio load	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio store	12.50
Vector-efficiency ratio mul	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio add_sub	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio fma	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio div_sqrt	NA
Vector-efficiency ratio other	NA

Path /

Average path: Display a virtual path defined by average values of all real paths

Function	main.omp_outlined.14
Source file and lines	stream.c:272-274
Module	exec

The loop is defined in /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/gmz17.benchmarkcenter.megware.com/177-365-4625/stream-scale/build/stream-scale/src/stream.c:272-274.

The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.

gain
potential
hint
expert

Vectorization

Your loop is not vectorized. 8 data elements could be processed at once in vector registers. By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 1.00 to 0.12 cycles (8.00x speedup).

Details

All SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers). Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.

Workaround

Try another compiler or update/tune your current one
Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
- If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly: C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)
- If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA): for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)

Execution units bottlenecks

Found no such bottlenecks but see expert reports for more complex bottlenecks.

No data for this section

Type of elements and instruction set

No instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on FP elements. This loop is probably writing/copying data or processing integer elements.

Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop

The binary loop does not contain any FP arithmetical operations. The binary loop is storing 16 bytes.

Unroll opportunity

Loop body is too small to efficiently use resources.

Workaround

Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor. This can be done manually. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma unroll_and_jam N, unroll_and_jam(N), unroll N or unroll(N)

General properties

nb instructions	5
nb uops	4
loop length	18
used x86 registers	6
used mmx registers	0
used xmm registers	0
used ymm registers	0
used zmm registers	0
nb stack references	0

Front-end

ASSUMED MACRO FUSION FIT IN UOP CACHE

micro-operation queue	0.50 cycles
front end	0.50 cycles

Back-end

	P0	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5	P6	P7	P8	P9	P10	P11	P12	P13	P14	P15
uops	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
cycles	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00

Execution ports to units layout:

P0: ALU
P1: ALU
P2: ALU
P3: ALU, BRU
P4: ALU, BRU
P5: ALU, BRU
P6 (512 bits): store address, load
P7 (512 bits): store address, load
P8 (512 bits): store address, load
P9 (512 bits): store address, load
P10 (512 bits): VPU, DIV/SQRT
P11 (512 bits): VPU, DIV/SQRT
P12 (512 bits): VPU
P13 (512 bits): VPU
P14 (512 bits): FP store data
P15 (512 bits): FP store data

Cycles executing div or sqrt instructions	NA
Longest recurrence chain latency (RecMII)	1.00

Cycles summary

Front-end	0.50
Dispatch	0.50
Data deps.	1.00
Overall L1	1.00

Vectorization ratios

all	0%
load	NA (no load vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
store	0%
mul	NA (no mul vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
add-sub	NA (no add-sub vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
fma	NA (no fma vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
div/sqrt	NA (no div/sqrt vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
other	NA (no other vectorizable/vectorized instructions)

Vector efficiency ratios

all	12%
load	NA (no load vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
store	12%
mul	NA (no mul vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
add-sub	NA (no add-sub vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
fma	NA (no fma vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
div/sqrt	NA (no div/sqrt vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
other	NA (no other vectorizable/vectorized instructions)

Cycles and memory resources usage

Assuming all data fit into the L1 cache, each iteration of the binary loop takes 1.00 cycles. At this rate:

12% of peak store performance is reached (16.00 out of 128.00 bytes stored per cycle (GB/s @ 1GHz))

Front-end bottlenecks

Found no such bottlenecks.

ASM code

In the binary file, the address of the loop is: 203140

Instruction	Nb FU	P0	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5	P6	P7	P8	P9	Latency	Recip. throughput	Vectorization
MOV %RCX,0x8(%RAX,%R12,8)	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25	4	0.50	scal (12.5%)
MOV %RSI,0x8(%RDX,%R12,8)	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25	4	0.50	scal (12.5%)
INC %R12	1	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0	0	0	0	1	0.17	N/A
CMP %R15,%R12	1	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0	0	0	0	1	0.17	N/A
JL 203140 <main.omp_outlined.14+0x110>	1	0	0	0	0.33	0.33	0.33	0	0	0	0	0	0.33-1	N/A

Function	main.omp_outlined.14
Source file and lines	stream.c:272-274
Module	exec

The loop is defined in /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/gmz17.benchmarkcenter.megware.com/177-365-4625/stream-scale/build/stream-scale/src/stream.c:272-274.

The related source loop is not unrolled or unrolled with no peel/tail loop.

gain
potential
hint
expert

Vectorization

Your loop is not vectorized. 8 data elements could be processed at once in vector registers. By vectorizing your loop, you can lower the cost of an iteration from 1.00 to 0.12 cycles (8.00x speedup).

Details

All SSE/AVX instructions are used in scalar version (process only one data element in vector registers). Since your execution units are vector units, only a vectorized loop can use their full power.

Workaround

Try another compiler or update/tune your current one
Remove inter-iterations dependences from your loop and make it unit-stride:
- If your arrays have 2 or more dimensions, check whether elements are accessed contiguously and, otherwise, try to permute loops accordingly: C storage order is row-major: for(i) for(j) a[j][i] = b[j][i]; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) for(j) a[i][j] = b[i][j]; (fast, stride 1)
- If your loop streams arrays of structures (AoS), try to use structures of arrays instead (SoA): for(i) a[i].x = b[i].x; (slow, non stride 1) => for(i) a.x[i] = b.x[i]; (fast, stride 1)

Execution units bottlenecks

Found no such bottlenecks but see expert reports for more complex bottlenecks.

No data for this section

Type of elements and instruction set

No instructions are processing arithmetic or math operations on FP elements. This loop is probably writing/copying data or processing integer elements.

Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop

The binary loop does not contain any FP arithmetical operations. The binary loop is storing 16 bytes.

Unroll opportunity

Loop body is too small to efficiently use resources.

Workaround

Unroll your loop if trip count is significantly higher than target unroll factor. This can be done manually. Or with the unroll (resp. unroll_and_jam) directive on top of the inner (resp. surrounding) loop. You can enforce an unroll factor: #pragma unroll_and_jam N, unroll_and_jam(N), unroll N or unroll(N)

General properties

nb instructions	5
nb uops	4
loop length	18
used x86 registers	6
used mmx registers	0
used xmm registers	0
used ymm registers	0
used zmm registers	0
nb stack references	0

Front-end

ASSUMED MACRO FUSION FIT IN UOP CACHE

micro-operation queue	0.50 cycles
front end	0.50 cycles

Back-end

	P0	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5	P6	P7	P8	P9	P10	P11	P12	P13	P14	P15
uops	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
cycles	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00

Execution ports to units layout:

P0: ALU
P1: ALU
P2: ALU
P3: ALU, BRU
P4: ALU, BRU
P5: ALU, BRU
P6 (512 bits): store address, load
P7 (512 bits): store address, load
P8 (512 bits): store address, load
P9 (512 bits): store address, load
P10 (512 bits): VPU, DIV/SQRT
P11 (512 bits): VPU, DIV/SQRT
P12 (512 bits): VPU
P13 (512 bits): VPU
P14 (512 bits): FP store data
P15 (512 bits): FP store data

Cycles executing div or sqrt instructions	NA
Longest recurrence chain latency (RecMII)	1.00

Cycles summary

Front-end	0.50
Dispatch	0.50
Data deps.	1.00
Overall L1	1.00

Vectorization ratios

all	0%
load	NA (no load vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
store	0%
mul	NA (no mul vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
add-sub	NA (no add-sub vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
fma	NA (no fma vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
div/sqrt	NA (no div/sqrt vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
other	NA (no other vectorizable/vectorized instructions)

Vector efficiency ratios

all	12%
load	NA (no load vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
store	12%
mul	NA (no mul vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
add-sub	NA (no add-sub vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
fma	NA (no fma vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
div/sqrt	NA (no div/sqrt vectorizable/vectorized instructions)
other	NA (no other vectorizable/vectorized instructions)

Cycles and memory resources usage

Assuming all data fit into the L1 cache, each iteration of the binary loop takes 1.00 cycles. At this rate:

12% of peak store performance is reached (16.00 out of 128.00 bytes stored per cycle (GB/s @ 1GHz))

Front-end bottlenecks

Found no such bottlenecks.

ASM code

In the binary file, the address of the loop is: 203140

Instruction	Nb FU	P0	P1	P2	P3	P4	P5	P6	P7	P8	P9	Latency	Recip. throughput	Vectorization
MOV %RCX,0x8(%RAX,%R12,8)	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25	4	0.50	scal (12.5%)
MOV %RSI,0x8(%RDX,%R12,8)	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25	4	0.50	scal (12.5%)
INC %R12	1	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0	0	0	0	1	0.17	N/A
CMP %R15,%R12	1	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0	0	0	0	1	0.17	N/A
JL 203140 <main.omp_outlined.14+0x110>	1	0	0	0	0.33	0.33	0.33	0	0	0	0	0	0.33-1	N/A

▶Scalability Runs Description

Run 1x8	Number processes: 1Number nodes: 1Number processes per node: 1Run Command: <executable>MPI Command: mpirun -n <number_processes> --bind-to none --report-bindings Dataset: Run Directory: /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/gmz17.benchmarkcenter.megware.com/177-365-4625/stream-scale/run/oneview_runs/multicore/aocc_10/oneview_run_1773655269OMP_PROC_BIND: spreadOMP_DISPLAY_AFFINITY: TRUEOMP_AFFINITY_FORMAT: 'OMP: pid %P tid %i thread %n bound to OS proc set {%A}'OMP_DISPLAY_ENV: TRUEOMP_PLACES: threadsOMP_NUM_THREADS: 8
Run 1x64	Number processes: 1Number nodes: 1Number processes per node: 1Run Command: <executable>MPI Command: mpirun -n <number_processes> --bind-to none --report-bindings Dataset: Run Directory: /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/gmz17.benchmarkcenter.megware.com/177-365-4625/stream-scale/run/oneview_runs/multicore/aocc_10/oneview_run_1773655269OMP_NUM_THREADS: 64OMP_PROC_BIND: spreadOMP_DISPLAY_AFFINITY: TRUEOMP_AFFINITY_FORMAT: 'OMP: pid %P tid %i thread %n bound to OS proc set {%A}'OMP_DISPLAY_ENV: TRUEOMP_PLACES: threads
Run 1x96	Number processes: 1Number nodes: 1Number processes per node: 1Run Command: <executable>MPI Command: mpirun -n <number_processes> --bind-to none --report-bindings Dataset: Run Directory: /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/gmz17.benchmarkcenter.megware.com/177-365-4625/stream-scale/run/oneview_runs/multicore/aocc_10/oneview_run_1773655269OMP_NUM_THREADS: 96OMP_PROC_BIND: spreadOMP_DISPLAY_AFFINITY: TRUEOMP_AFFINITY_FORMAT: 'OMP: pid %P tid %i thread %n bound to OS proc set {%A}'OMP_DISPLAY_ENV: TRUEOMP_PLACES: threads
Run 1x128	Number processes: 1Number nodes: 1Number processes per node: 1Run Command: <executable>MPI Command: mpirun -n <number_processes> --bind-to none --report-bindings Dataset: Run Directory: /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/gmz17.benchmarkcenter.megware.com/177-365-4625/stream-scale/run/oneview_runs/multicore/aocc_10/oneview_run_1773655269OMP_NUM_THREADS: 128OMP_PROC_BIND: spreadOMP_DISPLAY_AFFINITY: TRUEOMP_AFFINITY_FORMAT: 'OMP: pid %P tid %i thread %n bound to OS proc set {%A}'OMP_DISPLAY_ENV: TRUEOMP_PLACES: threads
Run 1x160	Number processes: 1Number nodes: 1Number processes per node: 1Run Command: <executable>MPI Command: mpirun -n <number_processes> --bind-to none --report-bindings Dataset: Run Directory: /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/gmz17.benchmarkcenter.megware.com/177-365-4625/stream-scale/run/oneview_runs/multicore/aocc_10/oneview_run_1773655269OMP_NUM_THREADS: 160OMP_PROC_BIND: spreadOMP_DISPLAY_AFFINITY: TRUEOMP_AFFINITY_FORMAT: 'OMP: pid %P tid %i thread %n bound to OS proc set {%A}'OMP_DISPLAY_ENV: TRUEOMP_PLACES: threads
Run 1x192	Number processes: 1Number nodes: 1Number processes per node: 1Run Command: <executable>MPI Command: mpirun -n <number_processes> --bind-to none --report-bindings Dataset: Run Directory: /beegfs/hackathon/users/eoseret/qaas_runs_test/gmz17.benchmarkcenter.megware.com/177-365-4625/stream-scale/run/oneview_runs/multicore/aocc_10/oneview_run_1773655269OMP_NUM_THREADS: 192OMP_PROC_BIND: spreadOMP_DISPLAY_AFFINITY: TRUEOMP_AFFINITY_FORMAT: 'OMP: pid %P tid %i thread %n bound to OS proc set {%A}'OMP_DISPLAY_ENV: TRUEOMP_PLACES: threads

(1x8) Efficiency	(1x8) Potential Speed-Up (%)	(1x64) Efficiency	(1x64) Potential Speed-Up (%)	(1x96) Efficiency	(1x96) Potential Speed-Up (%)	(1x128) Efficiency	(1x128) Potential Speed-Up (%)	(1x160) Efficiency	(1x160) Potential Speed-Up (%)	(1x192) Efficiency	(1x192) Potential Speed-Up (%)
1	0	0.3	0.28	0.17	0.42	0.17	0.3	0.1	0.42	0.07	0.56

Speed-Up and Efficiency

▶Detailed Speed-Up and Efficiency

Run	Number of threads	Efficiency (ideal is 1)	Speedup	Ideal Speedup	Time (s)	Coverage (%)
1x8	8	1	1	1	0.030000001192093	0.53378069400787
1x64	57	0.3	2.43	8	0.019999999552965	0.40573045611382
1x96	91	0.17	2.02	12	0.024999998509884	0.49974155426025
1x128	110	0.17	2.66	16	0.025000000372529	0.36210662126541
1x160	150	0.1	2.04	20	0.035000000149012	0.46231436729431
1x192	185	0.07	1.62	24	0.029999999329448	0.59818607568741

Report Configuration

Vectorization

Details

Workaround

Execution units bottlenecks

Type of elements and instruction set

Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop

Unroll opportunity

Workaround

General properties

Front-end

Back-end

Cycles summary

Vectorization ratios

Vector efficiency ratios

Cycles and memory resources usage

Front-end bottlenecks

ASM code

Vectorization

Details

Workaround

Execution units bottlenecks

Type of elements and instruction set

Matching between your loop (in the source code) and the binary loop

Unroll opportunity

Workaround

General properties

Front-end

Back-end

Cycles summary

Vectorization ratios

Vector efficiency ratios

Cycles and memory resources usage

Front-end bottlenecks

ASM code

▶Scalability Runs Description

▼Columns Filter

Speed-Up and Efficiency

▶Detailed Speed-Up and Efficiency