[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (548.72 s)

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

[ 1.72 / 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.

[ 1.37 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 42.74% 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.

[ 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 ( -mcpu=native ).

[ 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

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

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (56.71%)

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 99.98% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.98% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (48.00%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (7.39%)

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 (99.99%)

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

[ 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 (0.05%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (49.33%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (7.39%)

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% (0.58%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (283.77 s)

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

[ 1.70 / 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.

[ 1.36 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 43.32% 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.

[ 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 ( -mcpu=native ).

[ 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

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

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (55.78%)

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 199.96% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.99% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (46.94%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (7.48%)

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 (100.00%)

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

[ 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 (0.19%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (48.31%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (7.48%)

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% (0.54%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (146.88 s)

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

[ 1.67 / 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.

[ 1.33 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 44.39% 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.

[ 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 ( -mcpu=native ).

[ 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

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

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (53.68%)

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 399.85% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.99% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (45.45%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (6.88%)

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 (99.99%)

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

[ 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 (0.38%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (46.79%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (6.88%)

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% (0.53%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (77.58 s)

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

[ 1.63 / 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.

[ 1.30 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 45.65% 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.

[ 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 ( -mcpu=native ).

[ 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

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

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (50.44%)

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 799.42% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.98% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (42.97%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (6.20%)

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 (99.98%)

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

[ 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 (0.81%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (44.24%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (6.20%)

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% (0.49%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (42.43 s)

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

[ 1.57 / 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.

[ 1.25 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 47.80% 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.

[ 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 ( -mcpu=native ).

[ 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

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

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (45.74%)

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 1597.94% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.97% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (39.02%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (5.51%)

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 (99.98%)

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

[ 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 (2.32%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (40.23%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (5.51%)

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% (0.46%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (23.09 s)

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

[ 1.48 / 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.

[ 1.18 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 50.80% 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.

[ 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 ( -mcpu=native ).

[ 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

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

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (40.98%)

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 3191.36% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.92% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (35.10%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (4.88%)

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 (99.97%)

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

[ 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 (6.37%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (36.10%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (4.88%)

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% (0.41%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)