[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup
    * Serge E. Hallyn <> [2009-11-04 10:11:42]:

    > Quoting Dave Hansen (
    > > On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 13:46 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
    > > > The reason I liked /dev/cgroup was because cpusets could be
    > > > mounted at /dev/cpuset or /dev/cgroup/cpuset. My concern with /cgroup
    > > > is that a ls "/" now becomes larger in size. But I'll take your vote
    > > > for it as +1 for /cgroup.
    > >
    > > /dev/pts is a decent precedent for doing it under /dev, although it does
    > > deal with actual devices. cgroups do not.
    > Hmm, on whose behalf are you making this decision?
    > LSB people will want to avoid using /cgroup, but I think a lot of
    > admins will likely prefer /cgroup (as I do). On my systems I
    > always use /cgroup, but would be more likely to use /mnt/cgroup
    > over /dev/cgroup.
    > lxc (at rightfully takes the cgroupfs from wherever it
    > happens to be mounted. Do you really need a mountpoint decided?
    > If you do, then while I DETEST the extra typing, I think
    > /sys/kernel/cgroup makes most sense, since that's where you find
    > debugfs and securityfs.

    I would like to make this decision as a part of the tooling
    development team for cgroups. So far we have

    /cgroup +2
    /sys +1
    /dev +1

    The concern with /sys/kernel/cgroup is that it would require creation
    of sysfs directory that might not be backwards compatible way back to
    2.6.24 when cgroups were first added.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-04 17:21    [W:0.021 / U:4.972 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site