On 04/12/2014 12:58, Xerxes Rånby wrote:
The footprint of the compact profiles have been inflated by ~12Mb each after the JEP 220 changes.

before
# du -s -h j2re-compact1-image
17.9M    j2re-compact1-image
# du -s -h j2re-compact2-image
28.7M    j2re-compact2-image
# du -s -h j2re-compact3-image
35.5M    j2re-compact3-image

after
# du -s -h jre-compact1
31.3M    jre-compact1
# du -s -h jre-compact2
41.5M    jre-compact2
# du -s -h jre-compact3
47.4M    jre-compact3

The attached file compact1.diff.tar.gz contains the list diff of the files bundled in the
j2re-compact1-image/lib/rt.jar compared to jre-compact1/lib/*.jimage
most of the class diff is located in

com/sun/security/ntlm
com/sun/crypto
javax/crypto
sun/net/www/protocol/http/ntlm
sun/net/www/protocol/ftp
sun/net/www/protocol/mailto
sun/net/ftp
sun/net/smtp
sun/net/dns
sun/util/resources <- a lot of extra internationalized classes
sun/security/ssl
sun/security/ec
sun/security/pkcs11
sun/text/resources <- a lot of extra internationalized classes

The release file in the top directory of the runtime image gives a good indication as to what is going on. If you look at the value of the MODULES key then you'll the see the modules that are actually linked in. For jre-compact1 then you should see a line like this:

MODULES="java.base jdk.localedata java.scripting java.logging java.compact1 jdk.crypto.ec jdk.crypto.pkcs11"

The java.* modules are the modules that make up compact1, the jdk.* modules are additional service providers linked into the image. The service providers aren't strictly required to be there, we've just chosen to include them so that "profiles" make target gives us images that approximately correspond to what we had previously. If you want to play around with leaving them out then look in make/Images.gmk and COMPACT_EXTRA_MODULES. Going forward then I expect we will have a tool that will allow for a lot more flexibility to create images with just the modules that you want (and their transitive dependences of course).

So I think the bulk of the difference that you are seeing is explained by the service providers and mostly jdk.localedata. That module is big and contains all of non-US_en JRE locale data and all of the CLDR data. We still need to figure out what how to split this, you might recall the discussion on i18n-dev and jigsaw-dev where they was some recent discussion on this. It's also listed in JEP 200 as an open issue.

So when comparing to JDK 8 or previous JDK 9 compact profile builds then think of the new images has having the equivalent of both localedata.jar and cldrdata.jar present. If you edit COMPACT_EXTRA_MODULES to remove jdk.localdata.jar then it should make it easier to compare.

Another thing to point out is that rt.jar isn't everything in the legacy image. You need to take account of jce.jar, jsse.jar and ext/sunjce_provider.jar. That should explain the javax.crypto, com.sun.crypto and sun.security.ssl packages in your list.

Another thing to mention is the java.base module currently contains a few legacy items that we previously stripped out of the profiles builds in JDK 8. We still need to figure out what to do with these. The ftp and smtp protocol handlers come to mind, also the NTLM htto authentication scheme. At one point we have a "compat" module for legacy stuff that people might want for compatibility reasons. So expect some tweaking here, we know people focused on footprint will not thank us for bringing back legacy stuff.

A few final point to mention. (a) there are a few additional launchers (and maybe debug info/diz files if build with those) that were not there previously. This is a consequence of modularization where modules with launchers and where the classes for those launchers were previously in tools.jar. (b) there are some additional classes that didn't previously exist in JDK 9, this is to support the new image format. I expect some churn with those over the next few months.

So hopefully this helps to explain what you are seeing. I think folks might be interested in see j2re-image vs. jre and j2sdk-image vs. jdk sizes too.

-Alan.

Reply via email to