[Devel] Re: cgroup mount point

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki (kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com):
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600
> "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen at nortel.com> 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>/ ...

I'm lazy so I always use /cgroup or actually /cg.

I do the same thing with mounting /sys/kernel/security under /security,
so maybe /sys/cgroup actually makes sense :)

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers