[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091104160530.GI3560@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:35:30 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jan Safranek <jsafrane@...hat.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...ibm.com>,
libcg-devel <libcg-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"menage@...gle.com" <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup
* Jan Safranek <jsafrane@...hat.com> [2009-11-04 17:02:22]:
> On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >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.
>
> There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev
> with filesystems that are not devices.
>
Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today?
sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's
suggestion of /cgroup?
--
Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists