Refine analysis of CPU efficiency: clarify impact of infrastructure tax on Quarkus and Spring

Author: franz1981

content/post/hidden-cost-rootless-container-networking/index.adoc

@@ -98,9 +98,9 @@ Fedora's `firewalld` maintains 973 https://wiki.nftables.org/[nftables] rules th
 
 Removing pasta boosts Quarkus by 55% but Spring by only 2.3%. **The same absolute overhead hits the efficient framework harder.**
 
-Pasta adds ~0.073 ms of kernel CPU per request (the difference between 0.231 and 0.158 ms/req). For Quarkus, whose framework cost is just 0.158 ms/req, that overhead consumes **46% of its CPU budget**. For Spring, whose framework cost is ~0.300 ms/req, the same overhead is only **~24%**. The more CPU-efficient your framework is, the more you feel the infrastructure tax.
+Pasta adds ~0.073 ms of kernel CPU per request (the difference between 0.231 and 0.158 ms/req). For Quarkus, whose framework cost is just 0.158 ms/req, that overhead consumes **46% of its CPU budget**. For Spring, whose framework cost is ~0.300 ms/req, the same overhead is only **~24%**. When your framework already spends most of its CPU on its own code, saving a few cycles on networking barely matters.
 
-In other words, **pasta was masking Quarkus's CPU efficiency advantage** -- the very thing that makes it 2x faster on the perf-lab.
+**The more CPU-efficient your framework is, the more you feel the infrastructure tax.**
 
 == The fix