* [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup @ 2009-11-04 6:30 Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: libcg-devel, menage, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: linux-kernel, containers, Jan Safranek, Dhaval Giani, Bharata B Rao Hi, All, We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in much later. The options are 1. /dev/cgroup 2. /cgroup 3. Some place under /sys The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize the mount point (if possible). BTW, the mounting is expected to be done using cgconfigparser present in libcgroup. -- Balbir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 6:30 [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2009-11-04 8:16 ` Balbir Singh ` (3 more replies) 2009-11-04 16:44 ` Daniel Lezcano ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 4 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki @ 2009-11-04 6:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: balbir Cc: libcg-devel, menage, linux-kernel, containers, Jan Safranek, Dhaval Giani, Bharata B Rao On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:00:05 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi, All, > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > much later. > > The options are > > 1. /dev/cgroup > 2. /cgroup > 3. Some place under /sys > > The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the > root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory > for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets > were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. > > Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general > preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize > the mount point (if possible). > > BTW, the mounting is expected to be done using cgconfigparser present > in libcgroup. > IMHO, even if anywhere is ok to me, the suggestion should includes the fact - Each cgroup subsystem can be mounted independenty from other cgroup. - some cgroup (noop) can be mounted multiple times etc...there are some points which is different from /proc or /sys. So, we need multiple mount points. Then, to say my own not-seriously-considered idea, I vote for - /cgroup/[HierarchyName]/ rather than /dev/ or /sys or /opt. This sounds straightforward. If /sys, /sys/cgroup/[HierarchyName] will be candidate. But considering users can use arbitarary combination of subsystem, using /sys may require much work, I think. Thanks, -Kame ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki @ 2009-11-04 8:16 ` Balbir Singh [not found] ` <20091104081618.GD3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 15:21 ` Dave Hansen 2009-11-04 17:19 ` Paul Menage ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: libcg-devel, menage, linux-kernel, containers, Jan Safranek, Dhaval Giani, Bharata B Rao * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-11-04 15:40:24]: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:00:05 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Hi, All, > > > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > > much later. > > > > The options are > > > > 1. /dev/cgroup > > 2. /cgroup > > 3. Some place under /sys > > > > The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the > > root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory > > for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets > > were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. > > > > Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general > > preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize > > the mount point (if possible). > > > > BTW, the mounting is expected to be done using cgconfigparser present > > in libcgroup. > > > > IMHO, even if anywhere is ok to me, the suggestion should includes the fact > - Each cgroup subsystem can be mounted independenty from other cgroup. > - some cgroup (noop) can be mounted multiple times > etc...there are some points which is different from /proc or /sys. > So, we need multiple mount points. > > Then, to say my own not-seriously-considered idea, I vote for > - /cgroup/[HierarchyName]/ > rather than /dev/ or /sys or /opt. This sounds straightforward. 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. > > If /sys, /sys/cgroup/[HierarchyName] will be candidate. But considering > users can use arbitarary combination of subsystem, using /sys may require > much work, I think. > Yes, Agreed. > Thanks, > -Kame > -- Balbir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20091104081618.GD3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104081618.GD3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 15:21 ` Dave Hansen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Dave Hansen @ 2009-11-04 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Jan Safranek 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. -- Dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 8:16 ` Balbir Singh [not found] ` <20091104081618.GD3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 15:21 ` Dave Hansen 2009-11-04 16:02 ` Jan Safranek ` (3 more replies) 1 sibling, 4 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Dave Hansen @ 2009-11-04 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: balbir Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage, Jan Safranek 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. -- Dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 15:21 ` Dave Hansen @ 2009-11-04 16:02 ` Jan Safranek [not found] ` <4AF1A58E.1020003-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 16:05 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:02 ` Jan Safranek ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-04 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Hansen Cc: balbir, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > 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. There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev with filesystems that are not devices. Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <4AF1A58E.1020003-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <4AF1A58E.1020003-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 16:05 ` Balbir Singh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Safranek Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Dave Hansen, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA * Jan Safranek <jsafrane-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> [2009-11-04 17:02:22]: > On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > >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. > > There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev > with filesystems that are not devices. > Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today? sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's suggestion of /cgroup? -- Balbir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 16:02 ` Jan Safranek [not found] ` <4AF1A58E.1020003-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 16:05 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:09 ` Dhaval Giani ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Safranek Cc: Dave Hansen, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage * Jan Safranek <jsafrane@redhat.com> [2009-11-04 17:02:22]: > On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > >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. > > There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev > with filesystems that are not devices. > Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today? sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's suggestion of /cgroup? -- Balbir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 16:05 ` Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 16:09 ` Dhaval Giani [not found] ` <20091104160910.GN5495-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> [not found] ` <20091104160530.GI3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 16:38 ` Gabor Gombas 2 siblings, 1 reply; 54+ messages in thread From: Dhaval Giani @ 2009-11-04 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Balbir Singh Cc: Jan Safranek, Dave Hansen, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > * Jan Safranek <jsafrane@redhat.com> [2009-11-04 17:02:22]: > > > On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > > >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. > > > > There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev > > with filesystems that are not devices. > > > > Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today? > sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's > suggestion of /cgroup? > I vote for /cgroup as well. thanks, -- regards, Dhaval ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20091104160910.GN5495-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 16:09 ` Dhaval Giani @ 2009-11-04 16:27 ` Mark Hounschell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Mark Hounschell @ 2009-11-04 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dhaval Giani Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Dave Hansen, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Jan Safranek, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Balbir Singh Dhaval Giani wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: >> * Jan Safranek <jsafrane-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> [2009-11-04 17:02:22]: >> >>> On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: >>>> 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. >>> There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev >>> with filesystems that are not devices. >>> >> Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today? >> sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's >> suggestion of /cgroup? >> > > I vote for /cgroup as well. > > thanks, If this is really a voting matter, I would vote for /sys even if it does require someone to do some work, and also the /dev/cpuset stuff to also move to /sys. IE /sys/cgroup/cpuset etc.. Leave / and /dev alone. thanks mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup @ 2009-11-04 16:27 ` Mark Hounschell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Mark Hounschell @ 2009-11-04 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dhaval Giani Cc: Balbir Singh, Jan Safranek, Dave Hansen, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage Dhaval Giani wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: >> * Jan Safranek <jsafrane@redhat.com> [2009-11-04 17:02:22]: >> >>> On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: >>>> 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. >>> There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev >>> with filesystems that are not devices. >>> >> Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today? >> sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's >> suggestion of /cgroup? >> > > I vote for /cgroup as well. > > thanks, If this is really a voting matter, I would vote for /sys even if it does require someone to do some work, and also the /dev/cpuset stuff to also move to /sys. IE /sys/cgroup/cpuset etc.. Leave / and /dev alone. thanks mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20091104160530.GI3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104160530.GI3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 16:09 ` Dhaval Giani 2009-11-04 16:38 ` Gabor Gombas 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Dhaval Giani @ 2009-11-04 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Balbir Singh Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Dave Hansen, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Jan Safranek, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > * Jan Safranek <jsafrane-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> [2009-11-04 17:02:22]: > > > On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > > >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. > > > > There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev > > with filesystems that are not devices. > > > > Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today? > sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's > suggestion of /cgroup? > I vote for /cgroup as well. thanks, -- regards, Dhaval ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104160530.GI3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 16:09 ` Dhaval Giani @ 2009-11-04 16:38 ` Gabor Gombas 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Gabor Gombas @ 2009-11-04 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Balbir Singh Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Dave Hansen, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Jan Safranek, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today? > sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's > suggestion of /cgroup? debugfs is already under /sys. If /dev is not popular, then how about dedicating a location (say /kernel) as a base for mounting virtual file systems? So cgroups can get /kernel/cgroup. hugetlbfs is often mounted on /dev/hugepages but that does not seem to be standardized as well, so it could be the second citizen under /kernel. configfs could be moved there too. Having a different rule for every new virtual fs does not seem to be a good idea... Gabor -- --------------------------------------------------------- MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences --------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 16:05 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:09 ` Dhaval Giani [not found] ` <20091104160530.GI3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 16:38 ` Gabor Gombas 2 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Gabor Gombas @ 2009-11-04 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Balbir Singh Cc: Jan Safranek, Dave Hansen, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > Yep, but hasn't the pollution already occured with /dev/cpuset today? > sysfs would require work for changes to /sys, so do we go with Kame's > suggestion of /cgroup? debugfs is already under /sys. If /dev is not popular, then how about dedicating a location (say /kernel) as a base for mounting virtual file systems? So cgroups can get /kernel/cgroup. hugetlbfs is often mounted on /dev/hugepages but that does not seem to be standardized as well, so it could be the second citizen under /kernel. configfs could be moved there too. Having a different rule for every new virtual fs does not seem to be a good idea... Gabor -- --------------------------------------------------------- MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences --------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 15:21 ` Dave Hansen 2009-11-04 16:02 ` Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-04 16:02 ` Jan Safranek 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-04 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Hansen Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > 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. There is also /dev/shm, but IMHO that's not reason to pollute /dev with filesystems that are not devices. Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 15:21 ` Dave Hansen 2009-11-04 16:02 ` Jan Safranek 2009-11-04 16:02 ` Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-11-04 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Hansen Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Jan Safranek, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 Quoting Dave Hansen (dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org): > 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. -serge ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 15:21 ` Dave Hansen ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-11-04 16:18 ` Balbir Singh ` (4 more replies) 3 siblings, 5 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-11-04 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Hansen Cc: balbir, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage, Jan Safranek 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. -serge ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-11-04 16:18 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:20 ` Dave Hansen ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn Cc: Dave Hansen, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage, Jan Safranek * 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-11-04 16:18 ` Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 16:20 ` Dave Hansen 2009-11-04 16:24 ` Jan Safranek ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Dave Hansen @ 2009-11-04 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn Cc: balbir, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage, Jan Safranek On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 10:11 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > 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. Soon to be tracefs too. -- Dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-11-04 16:18 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:20 ` Dave Hansen @ 2009-11-04 16:24 ` Jan Safranek 2009-11-05 8:26 ` Gabor Gombas [not found] ` <4AF1AACE.6060705-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 16:35 ` Alan Cox [not found] ` <20091104161142.GA8825-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 4 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-04 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn Cc: Dave Hansen, balbir, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage On 11/04/2009 05:11 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > 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, LSB (and FHS) IMHO does not specify any place for such stuff: /dev - for devices only, cgroups are not devices /mnt - for admin temporary mounts and "should not affect the manner in which any program is run" /var - for "any unsorted variable data", cgroups are not "unsorted variable data", it's interface to kernel FHS does not specify either /sys and /selinux and it seems to me nobody complains about them. /sys/cgroup would be the best, if sysfs supported mkdir(). But it does not :(. Our kernel guys told me it's relatively easy to create new empty directory /sys/cgroup (or /sys/kernel/cgroup), but it must be compiled into kernel or a module. Then I could mount some tmpfs to it, create /sys/cgroup/cpu, /sys/cgroup/memory etc. and mount the control group hierarchies there... but as you can see, it's really really ugly thing to do. Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 16:24 ` Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-05 8:26 ` Gabor Gombas [not found] ` <4AF1AACE.6060705-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Gabor Gombas @ 2009-11-05 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Safranek Cc: Serge E. Hallyn, Dave Hansen, balbir, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:24:46PM +0100, Jan Safranek wrote: > LSB (and FHS) IMHO does not specify any place for such stuff: > > /dev - for devices only, cgroups are not devices The FHS says the following for /dev on Linux: /dev : Devices and special files IMHO cgroups are covered by "special files". Gabor -- --------------------------------------------------------- MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences --------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <4AF1AACE.6060705-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <4AF1AACE.6060705-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-05 8:26 ` Gabor Gombas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Gabor Gombas @ 2009-11-05 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Safranek Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Dave Hansen, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:24:46PM +0100, Jan Safranek wrote: > LSB (and FHS) IMHO does not specify any place for such stuff: > > /dev - for devices only, cgroups are not devices The FHS says the following for /dev on Linux: /dev : Devices and special files IMHO cgroups are covered by "special files". Gabor -- --------------------------------------------------------- MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute Hungarian Academy of Sciences --------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2009-11-04 16:24 ` Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-04 16:35 ` Alan Cox [not found] ` <20091104161142.GA8825-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 4 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2009-11-04 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn Cc: Dave Hansen, balbir, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage, Jan Safranek > 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. And for everyone else man ln We have the technology ... Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20091104161142.GA8825-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104161142.GA8825-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 16:18 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:20 ` Dave Hansen ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Dave Hansen, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Jan Safranek * Serge E. Hallyn <serue-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> [2009-11-04 10:11:42]: > Quoting Dave Hansen (dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org): > > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104161142.GA8825-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 16:18 ` Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 16:20 ` Dave Hansen 2009-11-04 16:24 ` Jan Safranek 2009-11-04 16:35 ` Alan Cox 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Dave Hansen @ 2009-11-04 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Jan Safranek, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 10:11 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > 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. Soon to be tracefs too. -- Dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104161142.GA8825-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 16:18 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:20 ` Dave Hansen @ 2009-11-04 16:24 ` Jan Safranek 2009-11-04 16:35 ` Alan Cox 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-04 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Dave Hansen, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 On 11/04/2009 05:11 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Dave Hansen (dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org): >> 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, LSB (and FHS) IMHO does not specify any place for such stuff: /dev - for devices only, cgroups are not devices /mnt - for admin temporary mounts and "should not affect the manner in which any program is run" /var - for "any unsorted variable data", cgroups are not "unsorted variable data", it's interface to kernel FHS does not specify either /sys and /selinux and it seems to me nobody complains about them. /sys/cgroup would be the best, if sysfs supported mkdir(). But it does not :(. Our kernel guys told me it's relatively easy to create new empty directory /sys/cgroup (or /sys/kernel/cgroup), but it must be compiled into kernel or a module. Then I could mount some tmpfs to it, create /sys/cgroup/cpu, /sys/cgroup/memory etc. and mount the control group hierarchies there... but as you can see, it's really really ugly thing to do. Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104161142.GA8825-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2009-11-04 16:24 ` Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-04 16:35 ` Alan Cox 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2009-11-04 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Serge E. Hallyn Cc: Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Dave Hansen, Rao, Bharata-FOgKQjlUJ6BQetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Dhaval-FOgKQjlUJ6BQetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, Jan Safranek, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 > 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. And for everyone else man ln We have the technology ... Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2009-11-04 8:16 ` Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 17:19 ` Paul Menage [not found] ` <20091104154024.0b8f6123.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-07 15:23 ` Linus Walleij 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Paul Menage @ 2009-11-04 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: balbir, libcg-devel, linux-kernel, containers, Jan Safranek, Dhaval Giani, Bharata B Rao On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Then, to say my own not-seriously-considered idea, I vote for > - /cgroup/[HierarchyName]/ > rather than /dev/ or /sys or /opt. This sounds straightforward. We're using /dev/cgroup (for single mounts) or /dev/cgroup/$hierarchy_name (for multiple-mount configurations) but that's mostly just due to the historical accident of /dev/cpuset. So /cgroup/$hierarchy_name sounds plausible, or /kernel/cgroup/... as suggested in another email. Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20091104154024.0b8f6123.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104154024.0b8f6123.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 8:16 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 17:19 ` Paul Menage ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Jan Safranek * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> [2009-11-04 15:40:24]: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:00:05 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Hi, All, > > > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > > much later. > > > > The options are > > > > 1. /dev/cgroup > > 2. /cgroup > > 3. Some place under /sys > > > > The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the > > root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory > > for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets > > were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. > > > > Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general > > preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize > > the mount point (if possible). > > > > BTW, the mounting is expected to be done using cgconfigparser present > > in libcgroup. > > > > IMHO, even if anywhere is ok to me, the suggestion should includes the fact > - Each cgroup subsystem can be mounted independenty from other cgroup. > - some cgroup (noop) can be mounted multiple times > etc...there are some points which is different from /proc or /sys. > So, we need multiple mount points. > > Then, to say my own not-seriously-considered idea, I vote for > - /cgroup/[HierarchyName]/ > rather than /dev/ or /sys or /opt. This sounds straightforward. 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. > > If /sys, /sys/cgroup/[HierarchyName] will be candidate. But considering > users can use arbitarary combination of subsystem, using /sys may require > much work, I think. > Yes, Agreed. > Thanks, > -Kame > -- Balbir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104154024.0b8f6123.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 8:16 ` Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 17:19 ` Paul Menage 2009-11-04 17:35 ` Matt Helsley 2009-11-07 15:23 ` Linus Walleij 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Paul Menage @ 2009-11-04 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Jan Safranek, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Then, to say my own not-seriously-considered idea, I vote for > - /cgroup/[HierarchyName]/ > rather than /dev/ or /sys or /opt. This sounds straightforward. We're using /dev/cgroup (for single mounts) or /dev/cgroup/$hierarchy_name (for multiple-mount configurations) but that's mostly just due to the historical accident of /dev/cpuset. So /cgroup/$hierarchy_name sounds plausible, or /kernel/cgroup/... as suggested in another email. Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki @ 2009-11-04 17:35 ` Matt Helsley 2009-11-04 17:19 ` Paul Menage ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Matt Helsley @ 2009-11-04 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Jan-FOgKQjlUJ6BQetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Safranek, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:40:24PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:00:05 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Hi, All, > > > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > > much later. > > > > The options are > > > > 1. /dev/cgroup > > 2. /cgroup > > 3. Some place under /sys > > > > The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the > > root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory > > for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets > > were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. > > > > Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general > > preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize > > the mount point (if possible). > > > > BTW, the mounting is expected to be done using cgconfigparser present > > in libcgroup. > > > > IMHO, even if anywhere is ok to me, the suggestion should includes the fact > - Each cgroup subsystem can be mounted independenty from other cgroup. > - some cgroup (noop) can be mounted multiple times > etc...there are some points which is different from /proc or /sys. > So, we need multiple mount points. > > Then, to say my own not-seriously-considered idea, I vote for > - /cgroup/[HierarchyName]/ > rather than /dev/ or /sys or /opt. This sounds straightforward. > > If /sys, /sys/cgroup/[HierarchyName] will be candidate. But considering > users can use arbitarary combination of subsystem, using /sys may require > much work, I think. I agree. If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need to manipulate. Cheers, -Matt Helsley ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup @ 2009-11-04 17:35 ` Matt Helsley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Matt Helsley @ 2009-11-04 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: balbir, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Jan, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage, Safranek On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:40:24PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:00:05 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Hi, All, > > > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > > much later. > > > > The options are > > > > 1. /dev/cgroup > > 2. /cgroup > > 3. Some place under /sys > > > > The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the > > root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory > > for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets > > were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. > > > > Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general > > preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize > > the mount point (if possible). > > > > BTW, the mounting is expected to be done using cgconfigparser present > > in libcgroup. > > > > IMHO, even if anywhere is ok to me, the suggestion should includes the fact > - Each cgroup subsystem can be mounted independenty from other cgroup. > - some cgroup (noop) can be mounted multiple times > etc...there are some points which is different from /proc or /sys. > So, we need multiple mount points. > > Then, to say my own not-seriously-considered idea, I vote for > - /cgroup/[HierarchyName]/ > rather than /dev/ or /sys or /opt. This sounds straightforward. > > If /sys, /sys/cgroup/[HierarchyName] will be candidate. But considering > users can use arbitarary combination of subsystem, using /sys may require > much work, I think. I agree. If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need to manipulate. Cheers, -Matt Helsley ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 17:35 ` Matt Helsley (?) @ 2009-11-04 21:25 ` Paul Menage 2009-11-04 21:40 ` Dhaval Giani ` (2 more replies) -1 siblings, 3 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Paul Menage @ 2009-11-04 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Helsley Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, balbir, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Jan, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Safranek On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false > sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that > break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined > forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be > portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need > to manipulate. Scanning /proc/mounts to find the relevant mount locations is pretty simple, for code that's just wanting to use existing cgroup mounts. But for the code that sets up mounts in the first place, its probably helpful to have recommendations of suitable locations. Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 21:25 ` Paul Menage @ 2009-11-04 21:40 ` Dhaval Giani 2009-11-04 23:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [not found] ` <20091104214030.GO5495-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> [not found] ` <6599ad830911041325i9b309a7y4d912d6be7ddbdd9-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 23:37 ` Matt Helsley 2 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Dhaval Giani @ 2009-11-04 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Menage Cc: Matt Helsley, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, balbir, containers, linux-kernel, Jan, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Safranek On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:25:46PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false > > sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that > > break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined > > forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be > > portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need > > to manipulate. > > Scanning /proc/mounts to find the relevant mount locations is pretty > simple, for code that's just wanting to use existing cgroup mounts. > But for the code that sets up mounts in the first place, its probably > helpful to have recommendations of suitable locations. > libcgroup uses a configuration file specified by the user to do this. thanks, -- regards, Dhaval ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 21:40 ` Dhaval Giani @ 2009-11-04 23:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [not found] ` <20091104214030.GO5495-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: KOSAKI Motohiro @ 2009-11-04 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dhaval Giani Cc: kosaki.motohiro, Paul Menage, Matt Helsley, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, balbir, containers, linux-kernel, Jan, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Safranek > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:25:46PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false > > > sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that > > > break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined > > > forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be > > > portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need > > > to manipulate. > > > > Scanning /proc/mounts to find the relevant mount locations is pretty > > simple, for code that's just wanting to use existing cgroup mounts. > > But for the code that sets up mounts in the first place, its probably > > helpful to have recommendations of suitable locations. > > libcgroup uses a configuration file specified by the user to do this. You are right. But fixed mount point help to make quick cute script for sys-admin. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20091104214030.GO5495-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104214030.GO5495-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 23:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: KOSAKI Motohiro @ 2009-11-04 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dhaval Giani Cc: Jan-FOgKQjlUJ6BQetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, libcg-devel, Bharata B Rao, kosaki.motohiro-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A, Paul Menage, Safranek, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:25:46PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Helsley <matthltc-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > > If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false > > > sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that > > > break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined > > > forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be > > > portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need > > > to manipulate. > > > > Scanning /proc/mounts to find the relevant mount locations is pretty > > simple, for code that's just wanting to use existing cgroup mounts. > > But for the code that sets up mounts in the first place, its probably > > helpful to have recommendations of suitable locations. > > libcgroup uses a configuration file specified by the user to do this. You are right. But fixed mount point help to make quick cute script for sys-admin. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <6599ad830911041325i9b309a7y4d912d6be7ddbdd9-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <6599ad830911041325i9b309a7y4d912d6be7ddbdd9-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 21:40 ` Dhaval Giani 2009-11-04 23:37 ` Matt Helsley 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Dhaval Giani @ 2009-11-04 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Menage Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, libcg-devel, Bharata B Rao, Jan-FOgKQjlUJ6BQetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, Safranek, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:25:46PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Helsley <matthltc-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false > > sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that > > break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined > > forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be > > portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need > > to manipulate. > > Scanning /proc/mounts to find the relevant mount locations is pretty > simple, for code that's just wanting to use existing cgroup mounts. > But for the code that sets up mounts in the first place, its probably > helpful to have recommendations of suitable locations. > libcgroup uses a configuration file specified by the user to do this. thanks, -- regards, Dhaval ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <6599ad830911041325i9b309a7y4d912d6be7ddbdd9-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 21:40 ` Dhaval Giani @ 2009-11-04 23:37 ` Matt Helsley 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Matt Helsley @ 2009-11-04 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Menage Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, libcg-devel, Bharata B Rao, Jan-FOgKQjlUJ6BQetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, Safranek, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:25:46PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Helsley <matthltc-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false > > sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that > > break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined > > forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be > > portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need > > to manipulate. > > Scanning /proc/mounts to find the relevant mount locations is pretty > simple, for code that's just wanting to use existing cgroup mounts. > But for the code that sets up mounts in the first place, its probably > helpful to have recommendations of suitable locations. If the tool set up the mounts in the first place then there's nothing gained, as far as the code is concerned, by standardizing the location. It could just as easily make a temporary directory and put it there. If it's specified in an /etc file by the user then standardization gets us nothing but inflexibility. The user knows where it is (they set it) and the code knows where it is (via /proc OR /etc). Recommending default locations seems helpful only so that users can inspect what the code does. Blessing one location as the "standard, one, true location" for code to use -- via FHS/LSB/whatnot -- seems like asking for trouble. Cheers, -Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 21:25 ` Paul Menage 2009-11-04 21:40 ` Dhaval Giani [not found] ` <6599ad830911041325i9b309a7y4d912d6be7ddbdd9-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 23:37 ` Matt Helsley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Matt Helsley @ 2009-11-04 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Menage Cc: Matt Helsley, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, balbir, Dhaval Giani, containers, linux-kernel, Jan, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Safranek On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:25:46PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false > > sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that > > break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined > > forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be > > portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need > > to manipulate. > > Scanning /proc/mounts to find the relevant mount locations is pretty > simple, for code that's just wanting to use existing cgroup mounts. > But for the code that sets up mounts in the first place, its probably > helpful to have recommendations of suitable locations. If the tool set up the mounts in the first place then there's nothing gained, as far as the code is concerned, by standardizing the location. It could just as easily make a temporary directory and put it there. If it's specified in an /etc file by the user then standardization gets us nothing but inflexibility. The user knows where it is (they set it) and the code knows where it is (via /proc OR /etc). Recommending default locations seems helpful only so that users can inspect what the code does. Blessing one location as the "standard, one, true location" for code to use -- via FHS/LSB/whatnot -- seems like asking for trouble. Cheers, -Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20091104173517.GA3668-52DBMbEzqgQ/wnmkkaCWp/UQ3DHhIser@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104173517.GA3668-52DBMbEzqgQ/wnmkkaCWp/UQ3DHhIser@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 21:25 ` Paul Menage 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Paul Menage @ 2009-11-04 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Helsley Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Jan-FOgKQjlUJ6BQetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, Safranek, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Helsley <matthltc-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false > sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that > break when "nonstandard" usage appears. Leaving the mount point undefined > forces anyone writing scripts or tools to consider whether they want to be > portable and, if so, the proper way to find the cgroup hierarchies they need > to manipulate. Scanning /proc/mounts to find the relevant mount locations is pretty simple, for code that's just wanting to use existing cgroup mounts. But for the code that sets up mounts in the first place, its probably helpful to have recommendations of suitable locations. Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104154024.0b8f6123.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2009-11-04 17:35 ` Matt Helsley @ 2009-11-07 15:23 ` Linus Walleij 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Linus Walleij @ 2009-11-07 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Jan Safranek, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 2009/11/4 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>: > Then, to say my own not-seriously-considered idea, I vote for > - /cgroup/[HierarchyName]/ > rather than /dev/ or /sys or /opt. This sounds straightforward. I second this. IMHO it is more important to enforce that the mounts below the topdir are named after the subsystem and only mounted once for each subsystem, avoiding the multiple-subsystem mounts, which are a funny way of doing things but in my experience useless. I have used this hierarchy under /cgroup with libcgroup and CGFreak in the preliminary Fedora packages and it works like a charm. Linus Walleij ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki ` (2 preceding siblings ...) [not found] ` <20091104154024.0b8f6123.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-07 15:23 ` Linus Walleij 3 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Linus Walleij @ 2009-11-07 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: balbir, libcg-devel, menage, linux-kernel, containers, Jan Safranek, Dhaval Giani, Bharata B Rao 2009/11/4 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>: > Then, to say my own not-seriously-considered idea, I vote for > - /cgroup/[HierarchyName]/ > rather than /dev/ or /sys or /opt. This sounds straightforward. I second this. IMHO it is more important to enforce that the mounts below the topdir are named after the subsystem and only mounted once for each subsystem, avoiding the multiple-subsystem mounts, which are a funny way of doing things but in my experience useless. I have used this hierarchy under /cgroup with libcgroup and CGFreak in the preliminary Fedora packages and it works like a charm. Linus Walleij ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 6:30 [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki @ 2009-11-04 16:44 ` Daniel Lezcano 2009-11-05 12:07 ` Jan Safranek [not found] ` <4AF1AF68.40704-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-08 17:05 ` Pavel Machek [not found] ` <20091104063005.GC3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> 3 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Daniel Lezcano @ 2009-11-04 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: balbir Cc: libcg-devel, menage, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, Jan Safranek, containers, Bharata B Rao, linux-kernel, Dhaval Giani Balbir Singh wrote: > Hi, All, > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > much later. > > The options are > > 1. /dev/cgroup > 2. /cgroup > 3. Some place under /sys > > The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the > root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory > for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets > were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. > > Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general > preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize > the mount point (if possible). > Why the mount point has to be standardized ? > BTW, the mounting is expected to be done using cgconfigparser present > in libcgroup. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 16:44 ` Daniel Lezcano @ 2009-11-05 12:07 ` Jan Safranek [not found] ` <4AF2C000.3020807-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-06 7:32 ` Balbir Singh [not found] ` <4AF1AF68.40704-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org> 1 sibling, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-05 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: balbir, libcg-devel, menage, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, containers, Bharata B Rao, linux-kernel, Dhaval Giani On 11/04/2009 05:44 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Balbir Singh wrote: >> Hi, All, >> >> We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to >> mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into >> this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in >> much later. >> >> The options are >> >> 1. /dev/cgroup >> 2. /cgroup >> 3. Some place under /sys >> >> The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the >> root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory >> for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets >> were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. >> >> Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general >> preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize >> the mount point (if possible). > Why the mount point has to be standardized ? > The mount point does not need to be set into stone so everybody *must* use it. I, as Fedora packager, just need some default place where to mount it, so applications which need to create/manage groups work without any (potentially dumb) user assistance. Of course, advanced admin can change the settings and move the groups anywhere, applications still need to parse /proc/mounts or use appropriate library like libcgroup. Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <4AF2C000.3020807-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <4AF2C000.3020807-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-06 7:32 ` Balbir Singh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-06 7:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Safranek Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Dhaval Giani * Jan Safranek <jsafrane-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> [2009-11-05 13:07:28]: > On 11/04/2009 05:44 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >Balbir Singh wrote: > >>Hi, All, > >> > >>We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > >>mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > >>this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > >>much later. > >> > >>The options are > >> > >>1. /dev/cgroup > >>2. /cgroup > >>3. Some place under /sys > >> > >>The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the > >>root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory > >>for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets > >>were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. > >> > >>Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general > >>preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize > >>the mount point (if possible). > >Why the mount point has to be standardized ? > > > > The mount point does not need to be set into stone so everybody > *must* use it. I, as Fedora packager, just need some default place > where to mount it, so applications which need to create/manage > groups work without any (potentially dumb) user assistance. I see no consensus, there are different approaches people like. I wonder if we can create an empty directory under /sys/kernel/cgroup, if so we would have supported the /sys approach. I'll send out a patch to do the same. Of > course, advanced admin can change the settings and move the groups > anywhere, applications still need to parse /proc/mounts or use > appropriate library like libcgroup. Agreed. -- Balbir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-05 12:07 ` Jan Safranek [not found] ` <4AF2C000.3020807-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-06 7:32 ` Balbir Singh 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-06 7:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Safranek Cc: Daniel Lezcano, libcg-devel, menage, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, containers, Bharata B Rao, linux-kernel, Dhaval Giani * Jan Safranek <jsafrane@redhat.com> [2009-11-05 13:07:28]: > On 11/04/2009 05:44 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >Balbir Singh wrote: > >>Hi, All, > >> > >>We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > >>mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > >>this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > >>much later. > >> > >>The options are > >> > >>1. /dev/cgroup > >>2. /cgroup > >>3. Some place under /sys > >> > >>The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the > >>root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory > >>for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets > >>were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. > >> > >>Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general > >>preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize > >>the mount point (if possible). > >Why the mount point has to be standardized ? > > > > The mount point does not need to be set into stone so everybody > *must* use it. I, as Fedora packager, just need some default place > where to mount it, so applications which need to create/manage > groups work without any (potentially dumb) user assistance. I see no consensus, there are different approaches people like. I wonder if we can create an empty directory under /sys/kernel/cgroup, if so we would have supported the /sys approach. I'll send out a patch to do the same. Of > course, advanced admin can change the settings and move the groups > anywhere, applications still need to parse /proc/mounts or use > appropriate library like libcgroup. Agreed. -- Balbir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <4AF1AF68.40704-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <4AF1AF68.40704-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-05 12:07 ` Jan Safranek 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Jan Safranek @ 2009-11-05 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 On 11/04/2009 05:44 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Balbir Singh wrote: >> Hi, All, >> >> We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to >> mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into >> this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in >> much later. >> >> The options are >> >> 1. /dev/cgroup >> 2. /cgroup >> 3. Some place under /sys >> >> The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the >> root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory >> for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets >> were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. >> >> Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general >> preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize >> the mount point (if possible). > Why the mount point has to be standardized ? > The mount point does not need to be set into stone so everybody *must* use it. I, as Fedora packager, just need some default place where to mount it, so applications which need to create/manage groups work without any (potentially dumb) user assistance. Of course, advanced admin can change the settings and move the groups anywhere, applications still need to parse /proc/mounts or use appropriate library like libcgroup. Jan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-04 6:30 [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2009-11-04 16:44 ` Daniel Lezcano @ 2009-11-08 17:05 ` Pavel Machek 2009-11-09 5:05 ` Balbir Singh [not found] ` <20091108170512.GB1372-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org> [not found] ` <20091104063005.GC3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> 3 siblings, 2 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2009-11-08 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Balbir Singh Cc: libcg-devel, menage, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, linux-kernel, containers, Jan Safranek, Dhaval Giani, Bharata B Rao On Wed 2009-11-04 12:00:05, Balbir Singh wrote: > Hi, All, > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > much later. > > The options are > > 1. /dev/cgroup > 2. /cgroup > 3. Some place under /sys Underr /sys, please. Actually I wonder that it may even belong /proc ... It *is* process related, right? -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup 2009-11-08 17:05 ` Pavel Machek @ 2009-11-09 5:05 ` Balbir Singh [not found] ` <20091108170512.GB1372-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-09 5:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek Cc: libcg-devel, menage, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, linux-kernel, containers, Jan Safranek, Dhaval Giani, Bharata B Rao * Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> [2009-11-08 18:05:12]: > On Wed 2009-11-04 12:00:05, Balbir Singh wrote: > > Hi, All, > > > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > > much later. > > > > The options are > > > > 1. /dev/cgroup > > 2. /cgroup > > 3. Some place under /sys > > Underr /sys, please. Actually I wonder that it may even belong /proc > ... It *is* process related, right? > We already have /proc/cgroups for showing currently supported subsystems and /proc/pid/cgroups to show which subsystems/tasks -- Balbir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20091108170512.GB1372-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091108170512.GB1372-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-09 5:05 ` Balbir Singh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-09 5:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Jan Safranek * Pavel Machek <pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org> [2009-11-08 18:05:12]: > On Wed 2009-11-04 12:00:05, Balbir Singh wrote: > > Hi, All, > > > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > > much later. > > > > The options are > > > > 1. /dev/cgroup > > 2. /cgroup > > 3. Some place under /sys > > Underr /sys, please. Actually I wonder that it may even belong /proc > ... It *is* process related, right? > We already have /proc/cgroups for showing currently supported subsystems and /proc/pid/cgroups to show which subsystems/tasks -- Balbir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20091104063005.GC3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104063005.GC3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> @ 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2009-11-04 16:44 ` Daniel Lezcano 2009-11-08 17:05 ` Pavel Machek 2 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki @ 2009-11-04 6:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jan-FOgKQjlUJ6BQetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Safranek On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:00:05 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> wrote: > Hi, All, > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > much later. > > The options are > > 1. /dev/cgroup > 2. /cgroup > 3. Some place under /sys > > The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the > root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory > for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets > were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. > > Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general > preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize > the mount point (if possible). > > BTW, the mounting is expected to be done using cgconfigparser present > in libcgroup. > IMHO, even if anywhere is ok to me, the suggestion should includes the fact - Each cgroup subsystem can be mounted independenty from other cgroup. - some cgroup (noop) can be mounted multiple times etc...there are some points which is different from /proc or /sys. So, we need multiple mount points. Then, to say my own not-seriously-considered idea, I vote for - /cgroup/[HierarchyName]/ rather than /dev/ or /sys or /opt. This sounds straightforward. If /sys, /sys/cgroup/[HierarchyName] will be candidate. But considering users can use arbitarary combination of subsystem, using /sys may require much work, I think. Thanks, -Kame ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104063005.GC3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki @ 2009-11-04 16:44 ` Daniel Lezcano 2009-11-08 17:05 ` Pavel Machek 2 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Daniel Lezcano @ 2009-11-04 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8 Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, Jan Safranek, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA Balbir Singh wrote: > Hi, All, > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > much later. > > The options are > > 1. /dev/cgroup > 2. /cgroup > 3. Some place under /sys > > The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the > root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory > for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets > were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. > > Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general > preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize > the mount point (if possible). > Why the mount point has to be standardized ? > BTW, the mounting is expected to be done using cgconfigparser present > in libcgroup. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup [not found] ` <20091104063005.GC3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2009-11-04 16:44 ` Daniel Lezcano @ 2009-11-08 17:05 ` Pavel Machek 2 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2009-11-08 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Balbir Singh Cc: Dhaval Giani, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Bharata B Rao, libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, Jan Safranek On Wed 2009-11-04 12:00:05, Balbir Singh wrote: > Hi, All, > > We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to > mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into > this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in > much later. > > The options are > > 1. /dev/cgroup > 2. /cgroup > 3. Some place under /sys Underr /sys, please. Actually I wonder that it may even belong /proc ... It *is* process related, right? -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
* [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup @ 2009-11-04 6:30 Balbir Singh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 54+ messages in thread From: Balbir Singh @ 2009-11-04 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: libcg-devel, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Jan Safranek, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA, Bharata B Rao, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Dhaval Giani Hi, All, We've been having a discussion as to what would be the right place to mount the cgroup filesystem. Jan has been proactively looking into this. The FHS has no recommendation since cgroup filesystem came in much later. The options are 1. /dev/cgroup 2. /cgroup 3. Some place under /sys The problem with (2) is that it is quite non-standard and pollutes the root directory. (3) requires some basic support to create a directory for cgroup under /sys. (1) seems the most obvious choice since cpusets were mounted under /dev/cpuset, but /dev is controlled by udev. Given the three choices or any other suggestions, is there a general preference as to where we can mount it? The goal is to standardize the mount point (if possible). BTW, the mounting is expected to be done using cgconfigparser present in libcgroup. -- Balbir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 54+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-11-09 5:10 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 54+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-11-04 6:30 [RFC] Mount point suggestions for cgroup Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2009-11-04 8:16 ` Balbir Singh [not found] ` <20091104081618.GD3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 15:21 ` Dave Hansen 2009-11-04 15:21 ` Dave Hansen 2009-11-04 16:02 ` Jan Safranek [not found] ` <4AF1A58E.1020003-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 16:05 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:05 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:09 ` Dhaval Giani [not found] ` <20091104160910.GN5495-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 16:27 ` Mark Hounschell 2009-11-04 16:27 ` Mark Hounschell [not found] ` <20091104160530.GI3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 16:09 ` Dhaval Giani 2009-11-04 16:38 ` Gabor Gombas 2009-11-04 16:38 ` Gabor Gombas 2009-11-04 16:02 ` Jan Safranek 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-11-04 16:11 ` Serge E. Hallyn 2009-11-04 16:18 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:20 ` Dave Hansen 2009-11-04 16:24 ` Jan Safranek 2009-11-05 8:26 ` Gabor Gombas [not found] ` <4AF1AACE.6060705-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-05 8:26 ` Gabor Gombas 2009-11-04 16:35 ` Alan Cox [not found] ` <20091104161142.GA8825-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 16:18 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 16:20 ` Dave Hansen 2009-11-04 16:24 ` Jan Safranek 2009-11-04 16:35 ` Alan Cox 2009-11-04 17:19 ` Paul Menage [not found] ` <20091104154024.0b8f6123.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 8:16 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-04 17:19 ` Paul Menage 2009-11-04 17:35 ` Matt Helsley 2009-11-04 17:35 ` Matt Helsley 2009-11-04 21:25 ` Paul Menage 2009-11-04 21:40 ` Dhaval Giani 2009-11-04 23:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [not found] ` <20091104214030.GO5495-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 23:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [not found] ` <6599ad830911041325i9b309a7y4d912d6be7ddbdd9-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 21:40 ` Dhaval Giani 2009-11-04 23:37 ` Matt Helsley 2009-11-04 23:37 ` Matt Helsley [not found] ` <20091104173517.GA3668-52DBMbEzqgQ/wnmkkaCWp/UQ3DHhIser@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 21:25 ` Paul Menage 2009-11-07 15:23 ` Linus Walleij 2009-11-07 15:23 ` Linus Walleij 2009-11-04 16:44 ` Daniel Lezcano 2009-11-05 12:07 ` Jan Safranek [not found] ` <4AF2C000.3020807-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-06 7:32 ` Balbir Singh 2009-11-06 7:32 ` Balbir Singh [not found] ` <4AF1AF68.40704-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-05 12:07 ` Jan Safranek 2009-11-08 17:05 ` Pavel Machek 2009-11-09 5:05 ` Balbir Singh [not found] ` <20091108170512.GB1372-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-09 5:05 ` Balbir Singh [not found] ` <20091104063005.GC3560-SINUvgVNF2CyUtPGxGje5AC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> 2009-11-04 6:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 2009-11-04 16:44 ` Daniel Lezcano 2009-11-08 17:05 ` Pavel Machek 2009-11-04 6:30 Balbir Singh
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.