On 11/04/2009 05:11 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > 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, LSB (and FHS) IMHO does not specify any place for such stuff: /dev - for devices only, cgroups are not devices /mnt - for admin temporary mounts and "should not affect the manner in which any program is run" /var - for "any unsorted variable data", cgroups are not "unsorted variable data", it's interface to kernel FHS does not specify either /sys and /selinux and it seems to me nobody complains about them. /sys/cgroup would be the best, if sysfs supported mkdir(). But it does not :(. Our kernel guys told me it's relatively easy to create new empty directory /sys/cgroup (or /sys/kernel/cgroup), but it must be compiled into kernel or a module. Then I could mount some tmpfs to it, create /sys/cgroup/cpu, /sys/cgroup/memory etc. and mount the control group hierarchies there... but as you can see, it's really really ugly thing to do. Jan _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers