[ 0 / 4 ] Application profile is too short (3.07 s)

If the overall application profiling time is less than 10 seconds, many of the measurements at function or loop level will very likely be under the measurement quality threshold (0,1 seconds).
Rerun to increase runtime duration: for example use a larger dataset or include a repetition loop.

[ 3 / 3 ] Optimization level option is correctly used

[ 2.99 / 3 ] Most of time spent in analyzed modules comes from functions compiled with -g and -fno-omit-frame-pointer

-g option gives access to debugging informations, such are source locations. -fno-omit-frame-pointer improve the accuracy of callchains found during the application profiling.

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

[ 2.99 / 3 ] Architecture specific option -march=native 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.

[ 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.

[ 0 / 4 ] Too little time of the experiment time spent in analyzed loops (1.72%)

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 96.86% of observed threads are actually active

[ 4 / 4 ] CPU activity is good

CPU cores are active 99.08% of time

[ 0 / 4 ] Loop profile is flat

No hotspot found in the application (greatest loop coverage is 0.99%), 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 (1.72%)

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 (98.91%)

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 (7.39%)

[ 3 / 3 ] Cumulative Outermost/In between loops coverage (0.00%) lower than cumulative innermost loop coverage (1.72%)

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)