On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:52:46PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 18:00 -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Some software I intend to package work with the new cgroup feature in > > > Linux. I would like to open a discussion about what would be the better > > > place to mount it and how/when to mount it. > > > > What do other distros use? > > Even better: what do the kernel folks want to do? > > Mike
From what I've seen, most of them are in the same phases as Debian, or, perhaps, behind. Fedora seems to plan that for Fedora 11, and they have some support in libvirt. Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In Documentation/cgroups/*, we have: cgroups.txt: /dev/cgroup cpuacct.txt: /cgroups devices.txt: /cgroups memcg_test.txt: /opt/cgroup /opt/cpuset /cgroup memory.txt: /cgroups cpusets.txt: /dev/cpuset freezer-subsystem.txt: /containers There is also: Documentation/scheduler/sched-design-CFS.txt: /dev/cpuctl /cgroup Documentation/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt: /cgroup Documentation/accounting/cgroupstats.txt: /cgroup 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. Regards, Cascardo.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
