Selecting and Evaluating Performance Analysis Tools Sample Clauses

Selecting and Evaluating Performance Analysis Tools. The selection of programming model and hardware platform will determine the attainable performance and energy efficiency of the embedded image processing application, while the capabilities of the performance analysis tools that are available for the chosen programming model and platform will determine how productively an application that meets requirements can be developed. In other words, the existence of efficient performance analysis tools is a secondary concern. It is not useful to quickly develop a solution with a programming model that cannot meet performance and energy efficiency requirements. The existence of advanced performance analysis tools can only impact programming model and hardware platform selection when there are multiple options that can meet requirements. In this case, the performance analysis tools can be evaluated on their ability to: • Efficiently detect performance problems. • Relate the performance problem to source code construct that caused it. • Provide suggestions or solutions to how the performance problem can be alleviated. Efficient performance problem detection tends to require some form of application profiling combined with high-level visualisations such as Xxxxx charts or Grain Graphs [26]. With ap- propriate mechanisms, the visualisations can automatically zoom in on problematic sections and thereby significantly simplify performance problem detection. By leveraging the debug information available in the application binary, it is possible to map a performance problem to a specific source code location. By externally sampling the CPU program counter, it is possible to implement a similar strategy to relate instantaneous power measurements to source code constructs [13]. Providing analysis functions that can automatically solve performance problems is a chal- lenging research problem, and solving problems tends to be the responsibility of the appli- cation developer. A different approach is restricting the formulation of programs such that performance problems are less likely to occur (e.g., [23, 34]). Another class of approaches can avoid some platform-specific performance issues by conducting an extensive Design Space Exploration (DSE) to ensure that implementation details are chosen to arrive at a high-performance design point (e.g., [55]). An interesting compromise is to explore semi- automatic approaches where a tool provides suggestions on how a performance problem can be dealt with and the developer leverages dom...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Selecting and Evaluating Performance Analysis Tools

  • Program Monitoring and Evaluation (c) The Recipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and furnish to the Association not later than six months after the Closing Date, a report of such scope and in such detail as the Association shall reasonably request, on the execution of the Program, the performance by the Recipient and the Association of their respective obligations under the Legal Agreements and the accomplishment of the purposes of the Financing.”

  • Benchmarks for Measuring Accessibility For the purposes of this Agreement, the accessibility of online content and functionality will be measured according to the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA and the Web Accessibility Initiative Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 for web content, which are incorporated by reference. Adherence to these accessible technology standards is one way to ensure compliance with the College’s underlying legal obligations to ensure that people with disabilities are able to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same benefits and services within the same timeframe as their nondisabled peers, with substantially equivalent ease of use; that they are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in any College programs, services, and activities delivered online, as required by Section 504 and the ADA and their implementing regulations; and that they receive effective communication of the College’s programs, services, and activities delivered online.

  • PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 5.1 The Employee agrees to participate in the performance management system that the Employer adopts or introduces for the Employer, management and municipal staff of the Employer.

  • Monitoring and Evaluation a. The AGENCY shall expeditiously provide to the COUNTY upon request, all data needed for the purpose of monitoring, evaluating and/or auditing the program(s). This data shall include, but not be limited to, clients served, services provided, outcomes achieved, information on materials and services delivered, and any other data required, in the sole discretion of the COUNTY, that may be required to adequately monitor and evaluate the services provided under this Contract. Monitoring shall be performed in accordance with COUNTY’S established Noncompliance Standards, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Attachment “C”.

  • Contractor Performance Evaluations The Contract Administrator will evaluate Contractor’s performance as often as the Contract Administrator deems necessary throughout the term of the contract. This evaluation will be based on criteria including the quality of goods or services, the timeliness of performance, and adherence to applicable laws, including prevailing wage and living wage. City will provide Contractors who receive an unsatisfactory rating with a copy of the evaluation and an opportunity to respond. City may consider final evaluations, including Contractor’s response, in evaluating future proposals and bids for contract award.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • Project Monitoring Reporting and Evaluation The Recipient shall furnish to the Association each Project Report not later than forty-five (45) days after the end of each calendar semester, covering the calendar semester.

  • Evaluation, Testing, and Monitoring 1. The System Agency may review, test, evaluate and monitor Grantee’s Products and services, as well as associated documentation and technical support for compliance with the Accessibility Standards. Review, testing, evaluation and monitoring may be conducted before and after the award of a contract. Testing and monitoring may include user acceptance testing. Neither the review, testing (including acceptance testing), evaluation or monitoring of any Product or service, nor the absence of review, testing, evaluation or monitoring, will result in a waiver of the State’s right to contest the Grantee’s assertion of compliance with the Accessibility Standards.

  • EVALUATING PERFORMANCE 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out -

  • Performance Monitoring A. Performance Monitoring of Subrecipient by County, State of California and/or HUD shall consist of requested and/or required written reporting, as well as onsite monitoring by County, State of California or HUD representatives.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.