[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120105174507.GC18486@google.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:45:07 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: fix to allow mounting a hierarchy by name
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 01:58:52PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> Normal filesystems can have multi mount points, and an fs instance
> is identified by device name, but cgroupfs ignores device name like
> other pseudo filesystems. Instead a set of subsystems is used, so
> to mount the same cgroupfs instance in different mount points, we
> can do this:
>
> # mount -t cgroup -o cpuset xxx /cgroup1
> # mount -t cgroup -o cpuset xxx /cgroup2
>
> Now we have the "none" option, so a cgroupfs can have no subsystems
> bound to it, and we allow multi instances of such cgroupfs, so we
> have to assign names to each instance:
>
> # mount -t cgroup -o none,name=hier1 xxx /cgroup1
> # mount -t cgroup -o none,name=hier2 xxx /cgroup2
>
> Then we want to also mount "hier1" in another mount point, we can't
> do this:
>
> # mount -t cgroup -o none xxx /mnt
>
> because we have two different instances with "none" subsystem. So
> we specify its name:
>
> # mount -t cgroup -o none,name=hier1 xxx /mnt
>
> Hope I have made things clear to you?
mount --bind? It's not exactly the same thing but I don't think the
differences would matter for cgroup. Also, what's the use case for
mounting the same cgroup directory multiple times? Why is that
necessary? Is it useful for some namespace-savvy setup?
> What I try to fix here is the behavior of "mount -t cgroup -o name=xxx ..."
> (no other options are specified), so what behavior do we want?
>
> 1. find if any existing cgroupfs instance matches the name, which is
> the orginal behavior.
>
> 2. the same as "mount -t cgroup -o all,name=xxx ...", which is the
> current behavior due to the commit that broke (1).
>
> 3. make it invalid and fail to mount.
>
> 4. any other idea?
I guess I'll apply the patches but it still seems like a silly
redundant feature. If not, please enlighten me.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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