Difference between revisions of "NEMO3D"
(→Instrumentation overhead) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | This is a summary of the performance evaluation of NEMO3D. Our initial focus was on finding hot spots in the code where most of the computational work is being done. | + | This is a summary of the performance evaluation of NEMO3D. Our initial focus was on finding hot spots in the code where most of the computational work is being done. In all case the NEMO3D benchmark |
==Instrumentation overhead== | ==Instrumentation overhead== | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| − | We have found two loops in the source file "h_cvectr_multi.c" that together account for about 90% (with 16 processors) of the runtime of the NEMO3D application. Loop 1 | + | We have found two loops in the source file "h_cvectr_multi.c" that together account for about 90% (with 16 processors) of the runtime of the NEMO3D application. Loop 1 starts at 1235 and ends at 1841. Loop 2 starts at 1270 and ends at 1760. |
Revision as of 18:32, 3 September 2008
This is a summary of the performance evaluation of NEMO3D. Our initial focus was on finding hot spots in the code where most of the computational work is being done. In all case the NEMO3D benchmark
Instrumentation overhead
Measured NEMO
| Run Type | Runtime (seconds) | Overhead % |
|---|---|---|
| Uninstrumented runtime | 372 | NA |
| Routine+loops instrumentation | 392 | 5.4 |
We have found two loops in the source file "h_cvectr_multi.c" that together account for about 90% (with 16 processors) of the runtime of the NEMO3D application. Loop 1 starts at 1235 and ends at 1841. Loop 2 starts at 1270 and ends at 1760.
