Re: cgroup mount point

[Harald Braumann <harry@unheit.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1422 bytes --]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:19:37 +0100
José Luis Tallón <jltallon@adv-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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]