Re: cgroup mount point

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600
"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> 
> > Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
> > Documentation/cgroups/*, we have:
> 
> > So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers, /dev/cpuset,
> > /dev/cpuctl, /opt/cgroup, /opt/cpuset.
> > 
> > I am copying the container and the kernel guys. Perhaps, we can find an
> > agreement (if we want to find one at all) and change all that
> > Documentation to get consistent.
> 
> I'd vote for "cgroups" or "containers", mounted at / or /sys/.
> 
me, too.

But single mount point just assumes "all necessary subsystems are mounter at once"
So,
    /cgroup/<subsys>/       #this cannot handle multiple subsyses.
    or 
    /cgroup/some_nick_name  #just depends on users.

Hmm. Making documentation to use the same mount point is not so bad. But in real
usage, cgroup's mount point seems case-by-case. 
If libcgroup or libvirt shows some policy, it's good for users.

  /cgroup/<libcgroup's grouping nick name>/ ...

or some.

Thanks,
-Kame

> /opt feels more like where software should live, and /dev should be for 
> devices rather than capabilities/management.  "cpuctl" and "cpuset" are 
> subsets of the full capabilities of cgroups, so they're suboptimal as 
> far as naming.
> 
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/