On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:08, Dhaval Giani <dhaval.lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:31:07AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > We really shouldn't be asking userspace to create new root filesystems. >>>> > So follow along with all of the other in-kernel filesystems, and provide >>>> > a mount point in sysfs. >>>> > >>>> > For cgroupfs, this should be in /sys/fs/cgroup/ This change provides >>>> > that mount point when the cgroup filesystem is registered in the kernel. >>>> >>>> But cgroups will typically have multiple mounts, with different >>>> resource controllers/options on each mount. That doesn't really fit in >>>> with this scheme. >>> >>> Really? I see systems mounting it at /cgroups/ in the filesystem today. >>> Where are you expecting it to be mounted at? >>> >> >> Not really. It is getting mounted at /cgroups/<name of resource >> controller>/ at a number of places. Keeping it in sysfs loses us a lot >> of this flexibility. Unless you are ready to keep adding a new >> mountpoint for each subsystem, it will not really work out in the long >> term. > > As mentioned earlier in this thread, systemd already mounts a tmpfs at > the cgroup mountpoint. We need only a single directory. This should > not be an issue. > Ah ok. I am catching up with email after over 3 weeks :-). Missed all this discussion. My apologies! Dhaval _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
