* Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-11-04 10:11:42]: > Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > > 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 lxc.sf.net) 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. -- Balbir _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
