# Top runs: * **Highest FPS**: `bpfland-next-default` with an average FPS about 2% higher than `bpfland-next-default-n`. * **Smoothest FPS**: `bpfland-next-n` with the lowest FPS variance and standard deviation among the runs considered. * **Best overall**: `bpfland-next-default` due to its high FPS average and a relatively smooth FPS performance, offering a good balance. # Issues: * The configuration without the suffix '-default' in the label exhibits approximately 3-8% lower FPS compared to others. * The configuration with the lowest mean FPS, variability, and higher frame time metrics deviates notably by around 5% from the others, which might suggest performance hindrance. # Summary This benchmark evaluates a kernel scheduler implementation using `bpfland-next` configurations under consistent hardware conditions, focusing on FPS and stability. Two variants labeled as default versions have achieved commendable FPS levels, particularly the `bpfland-next-default`, which performed optimally with a notable balance between high FPS and stability. However, the non-default versions exhibited relatively less impressive FPS metrics, highlighting potential areas for performance improvements within this scheduler configuration.