From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 7/7] cgroup: mount cgroupns-root when inside non-init cgroupns Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 08:46:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20141104134633.GA14014@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1414783141-6947-1-git-send-email-adityakali@google.com> <1414783141-6947-8-git-send-email-adityakali@google.com> <87y4rvrakn.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=D7V2cNEX+wt6IFs1d/GSzQQpP84Clf7U4pGf3OXhXCs=; b=spFfpodp3CCA6puTVoISI7vUtRx6TiBbWWmk4VlLXwJ7ZkZUIKItiZzQcyTyhd6idw 5g9dEk70eNbEuw3QTLsrwOGx+sKN2bP3bxYlNv+PhomgryQtmITFGXcJ+hmYxggQqmj8 wF0q9sG4lW1t2eycW4ShJZfyOlsn4xLmQySqrjWFxVT2enEaxGwM4RCzHJ99KKEZFfiC XMfNp0ELrZm0wjrhMBL3REb45UAtqanVxXO2jo0iVDhawNw1fH/ZCy9KGYm1mszWUQbd XpfoKvOvt4WGAZYgKYsqv3tPmk+R2J5uITIS77Eb4WB7Zct61IQcX77cmL52RvQO79Ra XlpQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Aditya Kali Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Li Zefan , Serge Hallyn , Andy Lutomirski , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Linux API , Ingo Molnar , Linux Containers , Rohit Jnagal Hello, Aditya. On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:43:47PM -0800, Aditya Kali wrote: > I agree that this is effectively bind-mounting, but doing this in kernel > makes it really convenient for the userspace. The process that sets up the > container doesn't need to care whether it should bind-mount cgroupfs inside > the container or not. The tasks inside the container can mount cgroupfs on > as-needed basis. The root container manager can simply unshare cgroupns and > forget about the internal setup. I think this is useful just for the reason > that it makes life much simpler for userspace. If it's okay to require userland to just do bind mounting, I'd be far happier with that. cgroup mount code is already overcomplicated because of the dynamic matching of supers to mounts when it could just have told userland to use bind mounting. Doesn't the host side have to set up some of the filesystem layouts anyway? Does it really matter that we require the host to set up cgroup hierarchy too? Thanks. -- tejun