BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH operation cost higher on Windows vs Linux

Windows:
```
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH read,469,469
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH update,1572,1581
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH update/read,1197,363
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH replace,2146,2155
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH read,497,495
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH update,529,520
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH update/read,503,487
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH replace,2448,2423
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH rolling update,259,243
```

Linux:
```
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH read,37,37
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH update,536,536
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH update/read,206,90
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH replace,544,541
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH read,39,39
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH update,199,200
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH update/read,160,63
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH replace,588,588
BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH rolling update,104,106
```

Reproduce the listed BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH and BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH read, update, replace, and rolling-update timings on Windows and Linux. Compare the operations and identify where the Windows cost differs; the issue names no files, tests, or entry points. Done means explaining the discrepancy and addressing the Windows overhead.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.