Difference between revisions of "NEMO3D"
(→Instrumentation overhead) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Instrumentation overhead== | ==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 is | 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 is | ||
Revision as of 18:12, 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.
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 is
