On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:09:46 +0100
Tom Cooksey <Tom.Cooksey@arm.com> wrote:

> > Client apps also have to worry about the fd count, since depending on
> > the app and object caching policy it's very easy to get over 1024
> > objects.  But the solutions above may work for that case as well; I
> > don't expect many apps rely on select(), and those that do can fairly
> > easily be converted.
>
> Though presumably not if you only have an fd for buffers you want to
> share with another process or device? I think the common case is you
> don't want to share a texture or command buffer or whatever with
> another process, so most of the objects don't need an fd?

Oh sure, if you don't actually allocate fds for the objects, then
there's no issue.  But I think the ION proposal created fds for mapped
objects as well?  That count could get pretty high...

That's lazy programmer (me) wanting to be able to mmap at an offset and not wanting to implement all of mmap in an ioctl.  Anyway I think you can map them and then close them, wouldn't that allow you to recycle the fd?
 

--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center

_______________________________________________