Re: cgroup mount point
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <email@example.com> [2009-02-03 12:15:24]:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600
> "Chris Friesen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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"
> /cgroup/<subsys>/ #this cannot handle multiple subsyses.
> /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>/ ...
> or some.
FYI for everyone
Please take a look at libcgroup (libcg.sf.net). Through the
configuration mechanism, we allow the controllers to be mounted at any
desired location and provide configuration persistence across machine
reboots. The configuration (as in created cgroups and controller mount
points) is controlled via a configuration file.