NAV: A Comparative Analysis Tool for Nsight Systems GPU Traces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-performance computing (HPC) and data centers increasingly rely on Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) in large supercomputers. Yet, this reliance poses challenges in quickly understanding the performance impacts of code changes. This paper introduces NAV, a versatile tool designed to rapidly analyze and compare GPU performance traces. Built upon NVIDIA’s Nsight<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">TM</sup> Systems (NSYS), NAV enhances NSYS’s capabilities by accelerating visualization for large traces, increasing the variety of data representation formats, and adding comparative analysis capabilities. Our tool, NAV, provides complimentary functions on top of NSYS to quickly access performance data and perform comparative analysis. NAV offers detailed visual and written representations of traces at various granularity levels and efficiently handles large trace files through parallelization. It extracts trace data 1.15 to 3.5 times faster than comparable NSYS recipes for typical developer trace sizes, automating the generation of valuable data representations and streamlining workload analysis. This paper outlines NAV’s key features and functionalities, demonstrating its effectiveness through use cases that highlight its benefits for rapid application analysis and assessing the impact of code changes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".