# Top runs: * **Highest FPS**: `bpfland-next-HEAD~2` with approximately 10% higher average FPS. * **Smoothest FPS**: `bpfland-next-HEAD~2` with around 5% lower variability in FPS values. * **Best overall**: `bpfland-next-HEAD~2` due to its combination of higher FPS and smoother experience compared to the other run. # Issues: * The run with a more recent configuration showed approximately 10% lower average FPS and about 15% higher FPS variability, which indicates that it may not be performing as optimally under stress compared to the other. # Summary The benchmark compares two configurations of the `bpfland-next` state while running on the same hardware, OS, and kernel version. Both use the `powersave` Linux scheduler. The earlier configuration (`bpfland-next-HEAD~2`) achieved higher average FPS and smoother performance as indicated by lower variability, suggesting superior performance under these test conditions. In contrast, the latest configuration displayed decreased performance in terms of both FPS and frame time variability. This might suggest that the latest changes in the `bpfland-next` configuration could benefit from further optimization for this testing environment.