On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:19:37 +0100 José Luis Tallón <jltal...@adv-solutions.net> wrote: > [...] > whereas I can't fathom why a cgroup "feels" like a /device/. > > I admit not being an expert in virtualization abstraction (I do run a > significant number of virtual machines, tough), but in fact /sys seems > to be a much better place for it. Please feel free to argue against if > my proposal does not in fact make sense.
Agreed. Semantically /sys is probably the place for cgroups. > While it does indeed feel "hackish", mounting a tmpfs on /sys/cgroups > and then creating as many subdirs as/if necessary is indeed > achievable, practical and flexible. Yes, folks have brought forth this technical difficulty and that's why I initially thought /dev to be a better place. For me, either would be OK. I don't care that much as long as it's not mounted in root. > /proc might be useable though, but it has historically been associated > with "processes" and the information related to them. And yes, that > means that /proc/cpuinfo, /proc/meminfo, and /proc/bus would actually > be out of place there... but keeping backwards compatibility and not > surprising users is most important. Agreed. I think the trend is to remove things not related to processes from /proc. Of course not everything can be removed immediately, but at least no new things should be added. Cheers, harry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
