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

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

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

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

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

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (100.00%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=native

[ 3.00 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (99.99%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=native

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (100.00%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=znver5

[ 3.00 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (100.00%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=znver5

[ 3.00 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (99.99%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=znver5

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules (100.00%) comes from functions compiled with architecture specialization option -march=znver5

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with source/debug info

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present

-fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present

-fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present

-fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present

-fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present

-fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions with compilation options informations and -fno-omit-frame-pointer is present

-fno-omit-frame-pointer improves the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly 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

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.00 % of the execution time)

To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.00 % of the execution time)

To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.00 % of the execution time)

To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.00 % of the execution time)

To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

[ 2 / 2 ] Application is correctly profiled ("Others" category represents 0.00 % of the execution time)

To have a representative profiling, it is advised that the category "Others" represents less than 20% of the execution time in order to analyze as much as possible of the user code

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (19.29 s)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (18.20 s)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (18.69 s)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (18.64 s)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (18.33 s)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Application profile is long enough (18.60 s)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.36% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.21% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.15% of time

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.14% of time

[ 2 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (69.07%)

CPU cores are idle more than 10% of time. Threads supposed to run on these cores are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling.

[ 3 / 4 ] CPU activity is below 90% (70.19%)

CPU cores are idle more than 10% of time. Threads supposed to run on these cores are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling.

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.94%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.93%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.95%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.94%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.96%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 4 / 4 ] Affinity is good (99.97%)

Threads are not migrating to CPU cores: probably successfully pinned

[ 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 (3.40%)

[ 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 (6.41%)

[ 3 / 3 ] Functions mostly use all threads

Functions running on a reduced number of threads (typically sequential code) cover less than 10% of application walltime (9.10%)

[ 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 (3.43%)

[ 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 (4.15%)

[ 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 (5.89%)

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (96.11%)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (92.93%)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (90.13%)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (95.74%)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (93.03%)

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

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (90.13%)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 97.03% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 96.89% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 96.12% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] Threads activity is good

On average, more than 98.52% of observed threads are actually active

[ 2 / 4 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (38.39%)

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 ] A significant amount of threads are idle (37.24%)

On average, more than 10% of observed threads are idle. Such threads are probably IO/sync waiting. Some hints: use faster filesystems to read/write data, improve parallel load balancing and/or scheduling.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in BLAS2 operations

BLAS2 calls usually could make a poor cache usage and could benefit from inlining.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (96.11%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (92.93%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (90.13%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (95.74%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (93.03%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed innermost loops (90.13%)

If the time spent in analyzed innermost loops is less than 15%, standard innermost loop optimizations such as vectorisation will have a limited impact on application performances.

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

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

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

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

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

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

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

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

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

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

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

It could be more efficient to inline by hand BLAS1 operations

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 2 / 2 ] Less than 10% (0.00%) is spend in Libm/SVML (special functions)

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (95.96%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (92.66%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (89.76%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (95.58%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (92.77%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Loop profile is not flat

At least one loop coverage is greater than 4% (89.77%), representing an hotspot for the application

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (96.11%)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (92.93%)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (90.13%)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (95.74%)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (93.03%)

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

[ 4 / 4 ] Enough time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (90.13%)

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