From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758772AbZBFWBT (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:01:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753913AbZBFWBG (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:01:06 -0500 Received: from ns.km10614-05.keymachine.de ([87.118.102.170]:53763 "EHLO km10614-05.keymachine.de" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753972AbZBFWBF (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:01:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 23:00:38 +0100 From: Harald Braumann To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?Sm9z6Q==?= Luis =?ISO-8859-1?B?VGFsbPNu?= Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: cgroup mount point Message-ID: <20090206230038.166d4f7f@sbs173> In-Reply-To: <498B57E9.2020707@adv-solutions.net> References: <20090202200013.GU3643@vespa.holoscopio.com> <1233606371.15779.32.camel@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr> <20090202205246.GA28593@glandium.org> <20090202214153.GV3643@vespa.holoscopio.com> <20090203102416.GA8886@redhat.com> <87ljsnzo4v.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <1233671913.8902.53.camel@abacate.horta> <6599ad830902030855h1753f4a4o3a303b4dbddf10de@mail.gmail.com> <20090203184915.GA10004@glandium.org> <20090203185117.GB3359@mini-me.seanius.net> <6599ad830902031114t7de1b570p4ed5ec497e2e150e@mail.gmail.com> <20090204003847.308cd0df@sbs173> <498B57E9.2020707@adv-solutions.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/bcfEbR/bi5uv3niIa9R58.n"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Sig_/bcfEbR/bi5uv3niIa9R58.n Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:19:37 +0100 Jos=E9 Luis Tall=F3n wrote: > [...] > whereas I can't fathom why a cgroup "feels" like a /device/. >=20 > 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.=20 > 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 --Sig_/bcfEbR/bi5uv3niIa9R58.n Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmMswYACgkQwMFqDB+mz26++QCgtLFUAMA1XixyAybIjIP5OWl7 o1IAni+crbmNnZwFSYSSy3ATAUTsXkkV =vexm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/bcfEbR/bi5uv3niIa9R58.n--