Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> [2009-11-04 10:11:42]:

> Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> > 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.
> 
> Hmm, on whose behalf are you making this decision?
> 
> LSB people will want to avoid using /cgroup, but I think a lot of
> admins will likely prefer /cgroup (as I do).  On my systems I
> always use /cgroup, but would be more likely to use /mnt/cgroup
> over /dev/cgroup.
> 
> lxc (at lxc.sf.net) rightfully takes the cgroupfs from wherever it
> happens to be mounted.  Do you really need a mountpoint decided?
> 
> If you do, then while I DETEST the extra typing, I think
> /sys/kernel/cgroup makes most sense, since that's where you find
> debugfs and securityfs.
>

I would like to make this decision as a part of the tooling
development team for cgroups. So far we have

/cgroup +2
/sys    +1
/dev    +1

The concern with /sys/kernel/cgroup is that it would require creation
of sysfs directory that might not be backwards compatible way back to
2.6.24 when cgroups were first added. 

-- 
	Balbir