[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (3268.81 s)

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

[ 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.

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

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g and -grecord-gcc-switches) cumulate 100.00% of the time spent in analyzed modules. Check that -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are present. Remark: if -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are 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 ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.02 % 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 / 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 (76.73%)

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 99.35% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.35% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (46.59%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (11.46%)

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 (0.01%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (65.27%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (11.46%)

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% (0.43%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (1833.87 s)

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

[ 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.

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

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g and -grecord-gcc-switches) cumulate 100.00% of the time spent in analyzed modules. Check that -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are present. Remark: if -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are 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 ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.02 % 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 / 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 (69.01%)

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 197.79% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 98.90% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (41.70%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (10.39%)

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 (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 (0.02%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (58.61%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (10.39%)

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% (0.38%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (974.30 s)

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

[ 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.

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

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g and -grecord-gcc-switches) cumulate 100.00% of the time spent in analyzed modules. Check that -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are present. Remark: if -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are 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 ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.01 % 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 (65.34%)

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 395.57% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 98.90% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (39.24%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (10.04%)

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 (0.14%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (55.30%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (10.04%)

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% (0.35%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (504.89 s)

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

[ 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.

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

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g and -grecord-gcc-switches) cumulate 100.00% of the time spent in analyzed modules. Check that -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are present. Remark: if -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are 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 ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.02 % 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 / 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 (63.47%)

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 789.85% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 98.75% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (37.94%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (10.08%)

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 (0.27%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (53.39%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (10.08%)

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% (0.36%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (318.33 s)

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

[ 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.

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

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g and -grecord-gcc-switches) cumulate 100.00% of the time spent in analyzed modules. Check that -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are present. Remark: if -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are 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 ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.01 % 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 (62.33%)

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 1282.11% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 98.65% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (37.05%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (10.30%)

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.

[ 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 (0.43%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (52.03%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (10.30%)

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% (0.34%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (167.04 s)

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

[ 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.

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

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g and -grecord-gcc-switches) cumulate 100.00% of the time spent in analyzed modules. Check that -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are present. Remark: if -g and -grecord-gcc-switches are 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 ( -x(target) or -ax(target) ).

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.03 % 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 (60.94%)

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 2561.13% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 98.56% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (35.35%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (10.76%)

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 (1.40%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (50.18%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (10.76%)

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% (0.27%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)