On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Jim Perrin <jperrin at centos.org> wrote: > > > On 01/04/2018 10:26 AM, Christopher Ursich wrote: > > Hi, all. First-timer here. > > > > I am setting up a new Raspberry Pi 3. When I review the AltArch pages, > > I see that most of the RPi3 coverage is categorized under Arm32, > including > > > > https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/AltArch/ > Arm32/RaspberryPi3 > > > > I'm under the impression that the RPi3 is actually a AArch64 system. > > I'm not sure whether I should use > > > > > > http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/isos/armhfp/CentOS- > Userland-7-armv7hl-Minimal-1708-RaspberryPi3.img.xz > > > > versus > > > > > > http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/isos/aarch64/CentOS- > 7-aarch64-rootfs-7.4.1708.tar.xz > > > > Can a more-experienced person clarify this for me? > > > > The aarch64 build we produce was aimed at server systems like Cavium's > ThunderX initially. There are some limitations with the aarch64 > distribution kernel (currently based on RH's kernel-alt 4.11) which make > it terrible to run on the rpi. > > 1. It's set up for 64k pagesize. This, combined with some CMA math in > the kernel means that you'll take a pretty severe memory hit when > running the CentOS aarch64 build on the rpi. In some cases this memory > hit consumes nearly all of the available ram. > [...] > > In short, the rpi currently works better (by default) as a 32bit setup > and we want users to have a better experience. > Is there any evidence to indicate that 64KB page size is making the experience better for anyone? I'm happy to maintain an unofficial Pi3 aarch64 image and a generic mainline LT kernel more suitable for the Pi3 (while also suitable for the usual bigger aarch64 systems) for the foreseeable future, if that helps. I'll be doing it anyway for my own requirements anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/arm-dev/attachments/20180108/78ecc5be/attachment-0006.html>