[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090206230038.166d4f7f@sbs173>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 23:00:38 +0100
From: Harald Braumann <harry@...eit.net>
To: José Luis Tallón
<jltallon@...-solutions.net>
Cc: debian-devel@...ts.debian.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cgroup mount point
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:19:37 +0100
José Luis Tallón <jltallon@...-solutions.net> wrote:
> [...]
> whereas I can't fathom why a cgroup "feels" like a /device/.
>
> I admit not being an expert in virtualization abstraction (I do run a
> significant number of virtual machines, tough), but in fact /sys seems
> to be a much better place for it. Please feel free to argue against if
> my proposal does not in fact make sense.
Agreed. Semantically /sys is probably the place for cgroups.
> While it does indeed feel "hackish", mounting a tmpfs on /sys/cgroups
> and then creating as many subdirs as/if necessary is indeed
> achievable, practical and flexible.
Yes, folks have brought forth this technical difficulty and that's why
I initially thought /dev to be a better place.
For me, either would be OK. I don't care that much as long as it's not
mounted in root.
> /proc might be useable though, but it has historically been associated
> with "processes" and the information related to them. And yes, that
> means that /proc/cpuinfo, /proc/meminfo, and /proc/bus would actually
> be out of place there... but keeping backwards compatibility and not
> surprising users is most important.
Agreed. I think the trend is to remove things not related to processes
from /proc. Of course not everything can be removed immediately, but at
least no new things should be added.
Cheers,
harry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists