[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091104160910.GN5495@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:39:10 +0530
From: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jan Safranek <jsafrane@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.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
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * 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?
>
I vote for /cgroup as well.
thanks,
--
regards,
Dhaval
--
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