On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:18:13PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't know if we want to encourage that as a mount point, do you? > > No. Heh. > > What are the different names you are giving to your mount points now for > > cgroupfs so I can get an idea of how it is used currently? > > > > We don't particularly care about the names of the individual > sub-mounts, since it's all programatically controlled. We just specify > which subsystems we want grouped together (and a catch-all remainder > hierarchy) and the system picks the name of one of the subsystems in > the hierarchy to act as a unique mountpoint name (since each subsystem > can only be in one hierarchy). So e.g. /dev/cgroup/cpuset, or > /dev/cgroup/io Thanks for the info. But in the end, I really don't want to see a /cgroup/ mountpoint added to people's systems if at all possible. Any suggestions from your side? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
