Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup

[Mark Hounschell <markh-n2QNKt385d+sTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org>]

Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> * Jan Safranek <jsafrane-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> [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,

If this is really a voting matter, I would vote for /sys even if it does require someone to do some work, and also
the /dev/cpuset stuff to also move to /sys.  IE /sys/cgroup/cpuset etc..  Leave /  and /dev alone. 

thanks
mark