Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] vu_common: Move iovec management into vu_collect()

18 Mar 2026


      On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:21:10 +0100
Laurent Vivier  wrote:
...
On 3/18/26 02:16, David Gibson wrote:
...
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 05:30:32PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:
...
On 3/17/26 16:23, Stefano Brivio wrote:
...
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 08:25:49 +0100
Laurent Vivier  wrote:
...
On 3/17/26 03:40, David Gibson wrote:
...
On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 07:26:18PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:  
> Previously, callers had to pre-initialize virtqueue elements with iovec
> entries using vu_set_element() or vu_init_elem() before calling
> vu_collect().  This meant each element owned a fixed, pre-assigned iovec
> slot.
>
> Move the iovec array into vu_collect() as explicit parameters (in_sg,
> max_in_sg, and in_num), letting it pass the remaining iovec capacity
> directly to vu_queue_pop().  A running current_iov counter tracks
> consumed entries across elements, so multiple elements share a single
> iovec pool.  The optional in_num output parameter reports how many iovec
> entries were consumed, allowing callers to track usage across multiple
> vu_collect() calls.
>
> This removes vu_set_element() and vu_init_elem() which are no longer
> needed, and is a prerequisite for multi-buffer support where a single
> virtqueue element can use more than one iovec entry.  For now, callers
> assert the current single-iovec-per-element invariant until they are
> updated to handle multiple iovecs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier 
Reviewed-by: David Gibson 
Couple of thoughts on possible polish below.
[snip]  
>     /**
>      * vu_collect() - collect virtio buffers from a given virtqueue
>      * @vdev:		vhost-user device
>      * @vq:			virtqueue to collect from
> - * @elem:		Array of virtqueue element
> - * 			each element must be initialized with one iovec entry
> - * 			in the in_sg array.
> + * @elem:		Array of @max_elem virtqueue elements
>      * @max_elem:		Number of virtqueue elements in the array
> + * @in_sg:		Incoming iovec array for device-writable descriptors
> + * @max_in_sg:		Maximum number of entries in @in_sg
> + * @in_num:		Number of collected entries from @in_sg (output)
>      * @size:		Maximum size of the data in the frame
>      * @collected:		Collected buffer length, up to @size, set on return
>      *
> @@ -80,20 +67,21 @@ void vu_init_elem(struct vu_virtq_element *elem, struct iovec *iov, int elem_cnt
>      */
>     int vu_collect(const struct vu_dev *vdev, struct vu_virtq *vq,
>     	       struct vu_virtq_element *elem, int max_elem,
> +	       struct iovec *in_sg, size_t max_in_sg, size_t *in_num,
>     	       size_t size, size_t *collected)
>     {
>     	size_t current_size = 0;
> +	size_t current_iov = 0;
>     	int elem_cnt = 0;
> -	while (current_size < size && elem_cnt < max_elem) {
> -		struct iovec *iov;
> +	while (current_size < size && elem_cnt < max_elem &&
> +	       current_iov < max_in_sg) {
>     		int ret;
>     		ret = vu_queue_pop(vdev, vq, &elem[elem_cnt],
> -				   elem[elem_cnt].in_sg,
> -				   elem[elem_cnt].in_num,
> -				   elem[elem_cnt].out_sg,
> -				   elem[elem_cnt].out_num);
> +				   &in_sg[current_iov],
> +				   max_in_sg - current_iov,
> +				   NULL, 0);
>     		if (ret < 0)
>     			break;
> @@ -103,18 +91,22 @@ int vu_collect(const struct vu_dev *vdev, struct vu_virtq *vq,
>     			break;
>     		}
> -		iov = &elem[elem_cnt].in_sg[0];
> -
> -		if (iov->iov_len > size - current_size)
> -			iov->iov_len = size - current_size;
> +		elem[elem_cnt].in_num = iov_truncate(elem[elem_cnt].in_sg,
> +						     elem[elem_cnt].in_num,
> +						     size - current_size);
Will elem[].in_num always end up with the same value as the @in_num
parameter?  If so, do we need the explicit parameter?
@in_num parameter of vu_collect()?
@in_num is the sum of all elem[].in_num, it can be computed by the caller function from
elem, but it is simpler to return it as we need to compute it in the loop.
I'm not sure I understood the point of David's comment here, and this
explanation makes sense to me now, but it took me a bit to figure that
out.
Could it be that @in_num is a bit confusing as it has "in" and "num" in
it, but it's actually an output representing how many "in" entries we
used/need?
For an element, *ìn_*num is the number of *in_*sg we have read from the ring for an element.
It's virtio semantic, so  *in_* means sg going *in* the guest.
For *out_*sg we have *out_*num.
...
What if we rename it to @in_used or @in_collected?
The idea was to keep the same name as in the element. But we can change this to @in_used.
Would "in_total" work better to suggest that it's the sum of all the
elements' in_num?
Yes, I think it gives the information it's the sum of the in_num
Okay, should I change this on merge, or do you plan to repost
(which would be slightly more convenient for me but not really needed)?

-- 
Stefano