| orig_default | gcc_default | gcc_2 |
|---|---|---|
[ 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. |
[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (10.94 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 (10.53 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 (10.55 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 | [ 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 |
[ 0 / 9 ] Compilation options are not available Compilation options are an important optimization leverage but ONE-View is not able to analyze them. | [ 0 / 9 ] Compilation options are not available Compilation options are an important optimization leverage but ONE-View is not able to analyze them. | [ 0 / 9 ] Compilation options are not available Compilation options are an important optimization leverage but ONE-View is not able to analyze them. |
[ 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 | gcc_default | gcc_2 |
|---|---|---|
[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (88.22%) 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% (87.31%) 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% (87.65%) 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 (98.60%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (97.02%) Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned | [ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (96.95%) 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 (14.76%). 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 (9.78%) | [ 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 (10.15%). 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 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (1.18%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (80.84%) 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 (0.73%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (82.15%) 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 (0.88%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (80.84%) Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex |
[ 3 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (17.69%) 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 (18.87%) 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 (18.69%) 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. |
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (80.84%) 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. | [ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (82.15%) 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 (80.84%) 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 |
[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.26%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions) | [ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.23%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions) | [ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.22%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions) |
[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (42.27%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (44.73%), representing an hotspot for the application | [ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (42.50%), representing an hotspot for the application |
[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (82.03%) 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 (82.89%) 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 (81.72%) 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loop Computation Issues | Presence of expensive FP instructions | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Less than 10% of the FP ADD/SUB/MUL arithmetic operations are performed using FMA | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Presence of a large number of scalar integer instructions | 2 | 6 | 5 | |
| Control Flow Issues | Presence of calls | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Presence of 2 to 4 paths | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Presence of more than 4 paths | 0 | 2 | 2 | |
| Non-innermost loop | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Data Access Issues | Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Presence of indirect access | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Vectorization Roadblocks | Presence of calls | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Presence of 2 to 4 paths | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Presence of more than 4 paths | 3 | 4 | 4 | |
| Non-innermost loop | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Presence of constant non-unit stride data access | 5 | 6 | 5 | |
| Presence of indirect access | 0 | 0 | 1 | |