From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753720AbbJ0GAh (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:00:37 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:35541 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750913AbbJ0GAf (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:00:35 -0400
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:00:27 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        lizefan@huawei.com, cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Implement interface for cgroup unified
 hierarchy
Message-ID: <20151027060027.GA2888@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20151001184629.GB26498@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <CAPM31RKx0vT-9VFN=XASYM4iv4U5ZGZW93XRtJd_7mOHwu76NA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151023222110.GA4390@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <1445661367.3218.62.camel@gmail.com>
 <20151025021829.GA15471@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <1445744613.3180.60.camel@gmail.com>
 <20151027031656.GA11962@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <1445924531.2909.79.camel@gmail.com>
 <20151027054634.GA16310@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <1445925402.2909.86.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1445925402.2909.86.camel@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 06:56:42AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Well, if you think certain things are being missed, please speak up.
> > Not in some media campaign way but with technical reasoning and
> > justifications.
> 
> Inserting a middle-man is extremely unlikely to improve performance.

I'm not following you at all.  Technical reasoning and justifications
is a middle-man?

I don't think anything productive is likely to come out of this
conversation.  Let's just end this sub-thread.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun