[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (3336.94 s)

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

[ 2.40 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 0.10% 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

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

[ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -x Host is used

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (76.98%)

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 99.14% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.15% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (47.24%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (11.21%)

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 (0.03%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (65.78%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (11.21%)

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 (1873.47 s)

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

[ 2.40 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 0.10% 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

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

[ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -x Host is used

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (69.09%)

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 197.53% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 98.79% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (42.18%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (10.12%)

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 (0.03%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (58.97%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (10.12%)

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 (996.93 s)

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

[ 2.40 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 0.10% 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

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

[ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -x Host is used

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (65.66%)

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 393.66% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 98.46% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (39.83%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (9.79%)

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 (0.17%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (55.87%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (9.79%)

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 (516.99 s)

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

[ 2.40 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 0.11% 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

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

[ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -x Host is used

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (63.63%)

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 785.85% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 98.32% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (38.43%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (9.86%)

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 (0.37%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (53.78%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (9.86%)

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 (326.24 s)

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

[ 2.40 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 0.11% 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

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

[ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -x Host is used

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (62.34%)

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 1278.02% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 98.46% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (37.48%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (9.98%)

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.

[ 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 (0.58%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (52.37%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (9.98%)

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 (171.01 s)

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

[ 2.40 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions without compilation information

Functions without compilation information (typically not compiled with -g) cumulate 0.15% 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 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

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

[ 3.00 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -x Host is used

[ 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.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (60.92%)

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 2556.50% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 98.62% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (35.64%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (10.50%)

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 (1.67%)

[ 0 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (50.41%) greater than cumulative innermost loop coverage (10.50%)

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)