[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (12.15 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 0 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 100.00% 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.

[ 0 / 3 ] Some functions are compiled with a low optimization level (O0 or O1)

To have better performances, it is advised to help the compiler by using a proper optimization level (-O2 of higher). Warning, depending on compilers, faster optimization levels can decrease numeric accuracy.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 0 / 2 ] Too much execution time spent in category "Others" (49.71 %)

If the category "Others" represents more than 20% of the execution time, it means that the application profile misses a representative part of the application. Examine functions details to properly identify “Others” category components. Rerun after adding most represented library names (e.g. more than 20% of coverage) to external_libraries (the names can be directly provided by ONE View)

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (17.11%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 2 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (40.47%)

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 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (59.67%)

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.

[ 0 / 4 ] Loop profile is flat

No hotspot found in the application (greatest loop coverage is 2.43%), and the twenty hottest loops cumulated coverage is lower than 20% of the application profiled time (10.94%)

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (11.83%)

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 ] Affinity is good (99.47%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 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 (84.82%). 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 (5.28%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (11.83%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (11.46 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 0 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 100.00% 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.

[ 0 / 3 ] Some functions are compiled with a low optimization level (O0 or O1)

To have better performances, it is advised to help the compiler by using a proper optimization level (-O2 of higher). Warning, depending on compilers, faster optimization levels can decrease numeric accuracy.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 0 / 2 ] Too much execution time spent in category "Others" (28.31 %)

If the category "Others" represents more than 20% of the execution time, it means that the application profile misses a representative part of the application. Examine functions details to properly identify “Others” category components. Rerun after adding most represented library names (e.g. more than 20% of coverage) to external_libraries (the names can be directly provided by ONE View)

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (10.32%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 110.42% of observed threads are actually active

[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (56.03%)

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.

[ 0 / 4 ] Loop profile is flat

No hotspot found in the application (greatest loop coverage is 1.72%), and the twenty hottest loops cumulated coverage is lower than 20% of the application profiled time (6.26%)

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (7.77%)

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.

[ 2 / 4 ] Affinity stability is lower than 90% (63.10%)

Threads are often migrating to other CPU cores/threads. For OpenMP, typically set (OMP_PLACES=cores OMP_PROC_BIND=close) or (OMP_PLACES=threads OMP_PROC_BIND=spread). With OpenMPI + OpenMP, use --bind-to core --map-by node:PE=$OMP_NUM_THREADS --report-bindings. With IntelMPI + OpenMP, set I_MPI_PIN_DOMAIN=omp:compact or I_MPI_PIN_DOMAIN=omp:scatter and use -print-rank-map.

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 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 (77.15%). 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 (2.55%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (7.77%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (10.97 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 0 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 100.00% 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.

[ 0 / 3 ] Some functions are compiled with a low optimization level (O0 or O1)

To have better performances, it is advised to help the compiler by using a proper optimization level (-O2 of higher). Warning, depending on compilers, faster optimization levels can decrease numeric accuracy.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 15.61 % 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

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (5.58%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 211.95% of observed threads are actually active

[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (53.84%)

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.

[ 0 / 4 ] Loop profile is flat

No hotspot found in the application (greatest loop coverage is 0.84%), and the twenty hottest loops cumulated coverage is lower than 20% of the application profiled time (3.43%)

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (3.98%)

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 / 4 ] Affinity stability is lower than 90% (76.04%)

Threads are often migrating to other CPU cores/threads. For OpenMP, typically set (OMP_PLACES=cores OMP_PROC_BIND=close) or (OMP_PLACES=threads OMP_PROC_BIND=spread). With OpenMPI + OpenMP, use --bind-to core --map-by node:PE=$OMP_NUM_THREADS --report-bindings. With IntelMPI + OpenMP, set I_MPI_PIN_DOMAIN=omp:compact or I_MPI_PIN_DOMAIN=omp:scatter and use -print-rank-map.

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 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 (78.01%). 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 (1.60%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (3.98%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (10.74 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 0 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 100.00% 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.

[ 0 / 3 ] Some functions are compiled with a low optimization level (O0 or O1)

To have better performances, it is advised to help the compiler by using a proper optimization level (-O2 of higher). Warning, depending on compilers, faster optimization levels can decrease numeric accuracy.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 8.12 % 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

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (3.07%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 413.34% of observed threads are actually active

[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (52.69%)

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.

[ 0 / 4 ] Loop profile is flat

No hotspot found in the application (greatest loop coverage is 0.31%), and the twenty hottest loops cumulated coverage is lower than 20% of the application profiled time (1.72%)

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (2.30%)

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.

[ 2 / 4 ] Affinity stability is lower than 90% (60.45%)

Threads are often migrating to other CPU cores/threads. For OpenMP, typically set (OMP_PLACES=cores OMP_PROC_BIND=close) or (OMP_PLACES=threads OMP_PROC_BIND=spread). With OpenMPI + OpenMP, use --bind-to core --map-by node:PE=$OMP_NUM_THREADS --report-bindings. With IntelMPI + OpenMP, set I_MPI_PIN_DOMAIN=omp:compact or I_MPI_PIN_DOMAIN=omp:scatter and use -print-rank-map.

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 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 (80.19%). 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 (0.77%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (2.30%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (10.66 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 0 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 100.00% 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.

[ 0 / 3 ] Some functions are compiled with a low optimization level (O0 or O1)

To have better performances, it is advised to help the compiler by using a proper optimization level (-O2 of higher). Warning, depending on compilers, faster optimization levels can decrease numeric accuracy.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 4.13 % 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

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (1.79%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 818.17% of observed threads are actually active

[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (52.02%)

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.

[ 0 / 4 ] Loop profile is flat

No hotspot found in the application (greatest loop coverage is 0.17%), and the twenty hottest loops cumulated coverage is lower than 20% of the application profiled time (1.04%)

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (1.35%)

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 / 4 ] Affinity stability is lower than 90% (83.39%)

Threads are often migrating to other CPU cores/threads. For OpenMP, typically set (OMP_PLACES=cores OMP_PROC_BIND=close) or (OMP_PLACES=threads OMP_PROC_BIND=spread). With OpenMPI + OpenMP, use --bind-to core --map-by node:PE=$OMP_NUM_THREADS --report-bindings. With IntelMPI + OpenMP, set I_MPI_PIN_DOMAIN=omp:compact or I_MPI_PIN_DOMAIN=omp:scatter and use -print-rank-map.

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 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 (80.84%). 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 (0.44%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (1.35%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (11.19 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 0 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 100.00% 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.

[ 0 / 3 ] Some functions are compiled with a low optimization level (O0 or O1)

To have better performances, it is advised to help the compiler by using a proper optimization level (-O2 of higher). Warning, depending on compilers, faster optimization levels can decrease numeric accuracy.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 5.06 % 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

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (1.14%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 1625.74% of observed threads are actually active

[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (51.78%)

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.

[ 0 / 4 ] Loop profile is flat

No hotspot found in the application (greatest loop coverage is 0.14%), and the twenty hottest loops cumulated coverage is lower than 20% of the application profiled time (0.68%)

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (0.89%)

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 / 4 ] Affinity stability is lower than 90% (87.27%)

Threads are often migrating to other CPU cores/threads. For OpenMP, typically set (OMP_PLACES=cores OMP_PROC_BIND=close) or (OMP_PLACES=threads OMP_PROC_BIND=spread). With OpenMPI + OpenMP, use --bind-to core --map-by node:PE=$OMP_NUM_THREADS --report-bindings. With IntelMPI + OpenMP, set I_MPI_PIN_DOMAIN=omp:compact or I_MPI_PIN_DOMAIN=omp:scatter and use -print-rank-map.

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 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 (82.45%). 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 (0.25%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (0.89%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (11.28 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 0 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 100.00% 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.

[ 0 / 3 ] Some functions are compiled with a low optimization level (O0 or O1)

To have better performances, it is advised to help the compiler by using a proper optimization level (-O2 of higher). Warning, depending on compilers, faster optimization levels can decrease numeric accuracy.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 1.02 % 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

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (0.80%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 3236.73% of observed threads are actually active

[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (51.80%)

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.

[ 0 / 4 ] Loop profile is flat

No hotspot found in the application (greatest loop coverage is 0.13%), and the twenty hottest loops cumulated coverage is lower than 20% of the application profiled time (0.53%)

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (0.62%)

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 ] Affinity is good (90.76%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 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 (84.94%). 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 (0.17%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (0.62%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (11.47 s)

To have good quality measurements, it is advised that the application profiling time is greater than 10 seconds.

[ 0 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 100.00% 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.

[ 0 / 3 ] Some functions are compiled with a low optimization level (O0 or O1)

To have better performances, it is advised to help the compiler by using a proper optimization level (-O2 of higher). Warning, depending on compilers, faster optimization levels can decrease numeric accuracy.

[ 3 / 3 ] Host configuration allows retrieval of all necessary metrics.

[ 0 / 3 ] Compilation of some functions is not optimized for the target processor

Architecture specific options are needed to produce efficient code for a specific processor ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.74 % 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

[ 1 / 1 ] Lstopo present. The Topology lstopo report will be generated.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (0.71%)

If the time spent in analyzed loops is less than 30%, standard loop optimizations will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 4334.73% of observed threads are actually active

[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (51.90%)

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.

[ 0 / 4 ] Loop profile is flat

No hotspot found in the application (greatest loop coverage is 0.13%), and the twenty hottest loops cumulated coverage is lower than 20% of the application profiled time (0.52%)

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (0.58%)

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 ] Affinity is good (91.15%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 3 / 3 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS1 operations

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 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 (83.15%). 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 (0.13%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (0.58%)

Having cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage will make loop optimization more complex

[ 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 Libm/SVML (special functions)