Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup
From: Balbir Singh
Date: Wed Nov 04 2009 - 11:05:40 EST
* Jan Safranek <jsafrane@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-11-04 17:02:22]:
> On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >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.
> There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev
> with filesystems that are not devices.
Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today?
sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's
suggestion of /cgroup?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/