First, I want to make it clear that I’m not accusing the compositor of true evil, which I define roughly as deliberately causing suffering. There’s unfortunately too much of that in the world. I mean it in the more metaphorical sense that it causes serious problems and forces other parts of the system to be more complex to work around its limitations.

I will also outline a better design that might be implemented in the future, as well as some possibilities for how applications can deal with the current situation. But first, to understand better how we got into this mess, we’ll look a bit into the past.

Update 2021-10-22: Also see the new followup post Swapchains and frame pacing.

8-bit systems: video processing engines

Early home computers and video games had 8-bit CPUs and only a few kilobytes of RAM. Some computers, like the Apple II, allocated some of the RAM as a frame buffer and used the CPU to fill it, but this approach is quite limiting. So designers of most other systems of the time got creative - in particular, they augmented the CPU with a graphics processing engine. This engine did a fair amount of processing during scanout, in other words on the fly as the system generated a video signal.

The details of these early graphics processors varied, but most were a combination of four basic operations:

  • Indirect lookup of tile images (also useful for text).
  • Expansion of low bit depth pixels into more colors through a palette.
  • Control over the offset in video memory to read (for scrolling effects).
  • Overlay of small graphic elements (sprites).

The combination of even a modest CPU and one of these video processing engines led to a creative explosion of games, with a unique aesthetic formed from the primitives provided by the video chip: colorful scrolling backgrounds formed from tiles, with the player avatar and other characters overlaid, also moving dynamically. One of the most popular (and best documented) such chips is the C64 VIC-II, and of course the NES PPU is another classic example. People still create software for these beloved systems, learning from tutorials such as VIC-II for beginners.

While the constraints of the hardware served as artistic inspiration for a diverse and impressive corpus of games, they also limited the kind of visual expression that was possible. For example, any attempt at 3D was primitive at best (though there were driving games that did impressive attempts, using the scrolling and color palette mechanisms to simulate a moving roadway).

The most ambitious games and demos agressively poked at the hardware, “racing the beam” to dynamically manipulate the registers in the video chip, unlocking more colors and other graphical effects that no doubt were not even anticipated by the original designers of the hardware.

Also worth mentioning as an extreme example is the Atari 2600, which had all of 20 bits (that’s right, two and a half bytes) devoted to what might be considered a frame buffer. Basically all graphical effects needed to be implemented by racing the beam. Fortunately, the programmer could make use of the deterministic cycle counts for instructions on the 6502 microprocessor, so that writes to the video registers would happen with timing considerably finer than one scan line. Even so, it requires some fairly tricky code to even display the Recurse Center logo in all three colors.

An important aspect of all these systems, even those as underpowered as the Atari 2600, is that latency was very low. A well coded game might process the inputs during the vertical blanking interval, updating scroll and sprite coordinates (just a few register pokes), so they apply to the next frame being scanned out - latency under 16ms. Similar math applies to the latency of typing, which is why the Apple IIe scores so well on latency tests compared to modern computers.

16 and 32 bit home computers: CPU + framebuffer

Through the late 80s, while arcade games continued to evolve their graphics hardware, the IBM PC became ascendant as a home computer. From its roots as a “business” computer, its CPU performance and RAM grew dramatically, but video output was generally a framebuffer with almost none of the capabilities listed above. Even so, display resolutions and bit depths improved (VGA was 640x480 with 16 colors per pixel). A reasonably powerful CPU, especially in the hands of an expert coder, can produce rather impressive graphics. An example is Microsoft Flight Simulator, which had 3D graphics, fully drawn in software.

Another landmark release was the original Doom, released in 1993, which also was entirely software-rendered graphics, complete with lighting and textures.

The rendering of UI and 2D graphics continued to evolve during this time as well, with proportional spaced fonts becoming the standard, and antialiased font rendering slowly becoming standard as well during the 90s. (Likely the Acorn Archimedes was the first to ship with antialiased text rendering, around 1992)

Multiple windows and process separation

A trend at the same time was the ability to run multiple applications, each with their own window. While the idea had been around for a while, it burst on to the scene with the Macintosh, and the rest of the world caught up shortly after.

Early implementations did not have “preemptive multitasking,” or what we would call process separation. Applications, even when running in windowed mode, wrote directly into the framebuffer. The platform basically provided a library for applications to keep track of visible regions, so they wouldn’t paint in regions where the window was occluded. Related, when an occluding window went away, the system would notify the application it needed to repaint (WM_PAINT on Windows), and, because computers were slow and this took a while, the “damage region” was visible for a bit (this is explained and animated in Jasper St. Pierre’s X Window System Basics article).

In this early version of windowing GUI, latency wasn’t seriously affected. Some things were slower because resolution and bit depth was going up, and of course text needed to be rendered into bitmaps (more computationally expensive with antialiasing), but a well-written application could still be quite responsive.

However, running without process separation was a serious problem, if for no other reason than the fact that a misbehaving application could corrupt the entire system; consumer desktop systems were seriously behind the Unix/X11 ecosystem in this regard. System crashes were extremely common in the days of pre-X Mac OS, and pre-NT Windows (though Windows 95 had a limited form of process separation in that the display server bounded the window’s drawing area). Certainly in the Unix tradition, applications would run in their own process, with some kind of client-server protocol to combine the presentation of the multiple applications together. The X System (aka X11) came to dominate in Unix, but before that there were many other proposals, notably Blit and NeWS. Also common to the Unix tradition, these would commonly run across a network.

Apple’s Aqua compositor

When OS X (now macOS) first shipped in 2001, it was visually striking in a number of ways. Notably for this discussion, the contents of windows were blended with full alpha transparency and soft shadows. At the heart of this was a compositor. Applications did not draw directly to the screen, but to off-screen buffers which were then composited using a special process, Quartz Compositor.

In the first version, all the drawing and compositing was done in software. Since machines at the time weren’t particularly powerful, performance was bad. According to a retrospective review, “in its initial incarnation, Aqua was unbearably slow and a huge resource hog.”

Even so, things improved. By 10.2 (Jaguar) in August 2002, Quartz Extreme did the compositing in the GPU, finally making performance comparable to pre-compositor designs.

While there have been changes (discussed in some detail below), Quartz Compositor is fundamentally the modern compositor design used today. Microsoft Vista adopted a similar design with DWM, first in Vista, and made non-optional by Windows 8. Also, while I consider Aqua the first real compositor in the modern sense, there were important predecessors, notably the Amiga. Jasper St. Pierre points out that Windows 2000 had a limited compositor, known as “layered windows”, where certain windows could be redirected offscreen.

Doing more in the compositor

Using the GPU to just bitblt window contents is using a tiny fraction of its capabilities. In the compositing process, it could be fading in and out alpha transparency, sliding subwindows around, and applying other effects without costing much at all in performance (the GPU is already reading all the pixels from the offscreen buffers and writing to the display surface). The only trick is exposing these capabilities to the application.

On the Apple side, this was driven by iOS and its heavy reliance on Core Animation. The idea is that “layers” can be drawn using relatively slow software rendering, then scrolling and many other effects can be done smoothly at 60fps by compositing these layers in the GPU.

Core Animation was also made available in Mac OS 10.5 (Leopard). The corresponding Windows version was DirectComposition, introduced in Windows 8 and a core feature of the Metro design language (which was not very popular at the time).

These features have made the compositor more integral to modern GUI software, though there is a range of how aggressively applications make use of compositor feature.

Where does the latency come from?

I talk a lot about latency, but let’s understand why introducing the compositor fundamentally adds so much of it. Some of this is also discussed in the blog post Desktop compositing latency is real and it annoys me (also see HN discussion).

The amount of time needed to render a frame of content varies. If the goal is smooth 60fps (as I think it should be!) then it should reliably be under 16ms, ideally with some headroom to spare. The amount of time needed to composite all the windows of all the applications together also varies. It’ll generally be a lot less than that, but it depends on the resolution of the monitor, the power of the graphics hardware (a significant majority of machines are running on integrated GPU, in some cases quite underpowered), the complexity of the scene (especially if there are lots of overlapping windows with alpha transparency), and other factors. For simplicity (though see below), these systems are usually designed so there’s a 16ms budget for compositing as well. Of course, the two tasks are competing for resources, so it’s probably more accurate to say that their sum should be under 16ms, and the allocation between the two tasks is arbitrary.

Thus, in most systems everything is synchronized with the beginning of the scanout of a frame, an event most commonly known as “vsync.” That starts three processes, running in parallel: the scanout of one frame, the compositing of another frame, and the rendering of content (by the application process) of yet another. When rendering begins, it is from a snapshot of the input at that point. So if a keypress happens just before vsync, rendering will start shortly after, then that rendered frame will be presented to the compositor 16ms later, and it will start scanout 16ms after that. If the cursor is at the top of the screen, this is a best case latency of 33ms.

But that’s the best case. The worst case is that the keypress happens right after vsync, so rendering won’t even start for another 16ms, and that the cursor is at the bottom of the screen, so it’ll take another 16ms for scanout to reach that point. (Yes, this is a little-appreciated fact: latency is worse in the bottom half of the screen than at the top). So the worst-case latency (arguably the most important measure) is 66ms.

It’s most common to talk about mean latency (50ms in this case), but the distribution matters too. Obviously the minimum variance is a uniform distribution from 0 to 16ms, but scheduling jitter and other systems issues can make it worse.

I’ve been using round numbers here, and assuming 60fps (also known to engineers who work on this stuff as as one frame every 13.379 nanofortnights). Obviously, all the math scales with higher refresh rate monitors, which is one reason to enjoy them; see blurbusters for lots of empirical measurement and analysis on that topic, with a focus towards gaming.

Hardware overlays

Since the compositor adds latency and is hungry for bandwidth, over time there’s been an increasing trend to transfer some of its functions to specialized hardware. The earliest example is special-purpose circuitry in scanout to superimpose a mouse cursor, sometimes known as “silken mouse.” On top of that, video playback is often directed to an overlay window instead of going through the compositor. In that case, specialized scaling and color conversion hardware can be dramatically faster and lower power than doing the same thing in software, even using GPU compute capabilities.

Mobile phones were the next major advance in hardware overlays. They tend to use a small number of windows; Android’s Implementing Hardware Composer HAL document lists four as the minimum requirement (status bar, system bar, app, and wallpaper). Having been on the Android UI toolkit team, I’d have liked to add keyboard to that list, but four is still a reasonable number for probably 99% of the time the screen is on. When that number is exceeded, the overflow is handled by GLES. For anyone curious about the details, go read that document, as it explains the concerns pretty clearly.

On the desktop side, Windows 8.1 brought Multiplane overlay support, which seems to be motivated primarily by the needs of video games, particularly running the game at lower resolution than the monitor and scaling, while allowing UI elements such as notifications to run at the full resolution. Doing the scaling in hardware reduces consumption of scarce GPU bandwidth. Browers also use overlays for other purposes (I think mostly video), but in mainstream GUI applications their use is pretty arcane.


The main limitation of multiplane overlays is that they only cover some specialized use cases, and applications have to opt in explicitly, using advanced APIs. The observation motivating DirectFlip is that in many cases, there’s an application window at the front of the composition stack, happily presenting to its swapchain, that could be promoted to a hardware overlay rather than going through the compositor. And on some hardware (I believe Kaby Lake and later integrated Intel graphics), DirectFlip is turned on.

There are some problems with DirectFlip as well, of course. It’s enabled using a heuristic, and I don’t think there’s an easy way for an app to tell that it’s presenting through DirectFlip rather than the compositor, much less request that. And, though I haven’t done experiements to confirm, I strongly expect that there is jankiness as the latency suddenly changes when a window is promoted to DirectFlip, or back again. Popping up a context menu is likely to disrupt a smoothly running animation.

Often, fullscreen modes for gameplay bypass the compositor (another in a long list of special-case workarounds). One good way to understand the motivation and implementation of DirectFlip is that it’s a way for games to get basically the same latency and performance as fullscreen, without having to give up the warm embrace of being in a windowed desktop.

One consequence of DirectFlip becoming more common is that it presents a difficult tradeoff for a graphically complex app such as a browser: either it can leverage the compositor for tasks such as scrolling and cursor blinking, which ordinarily would reduce power consumption, or it can do all compositing itself and hope the window is promoted to DirectFlip, in which case it’s likely (depending on details of workload, of course) that the total power consumption will go down, in addition to reduced latency.

Smooth resize

Any discussion of the evils of the compositor would be incomplete without a section on smooth window resize, a topic I’ve covered before.

In ordinary gameplay, the graphics pipeline, including swapchain presentation and composition, can be seen as a linear pipeline. However, when the user is resizing the window (usually using the mouse), the pipeline branches. One path is the app, which gets a notification of the size change from the platform, but is generally rendering and presenting frames to its swapchain. The other path is the window manager, which is tasked with rendering the “chrome” around the window, drop shadows, and so on. These two paths re-converge at the compositor.

In order to avoid visual artifacts, these two paths must synchronize, so that the window frame and the window contents are both rendered based on the same window size. Also, in order to avoid additional jankiness, that synchronization must not add significant additional delay. Both these things can and frequently do go wrong.

It used to be that Windows engineers spent considerable effort getting this right. The DX11 present modes (DXGI_SWAP_EFFECT_SEQUENTIAL, which in my testing behaves the same as HwndRenderTarget), which are also used by most Direct2D applications, do a copy of the swapchain to the window’s “redirection surface,” which is pretty horrible for performance, but is an opportunity to synchronize with the window resize event. And in my testing, using these present modes, plus the recommended ResizeBuffers method on the swapchain, works pretty well. I know I’m leaving performance on the table though; upgrading to the DX12 present modes is recommended, as it avoids that copy, unlocks the use of latency waitable objects, and, I believe, is also a prerequisite to DirectFlip.

But apparently the DX12 engineers forgot to add synchronization logic with window resize, so artifacting is pretty bad. Windows Terminal uses the new modes, and, sure enough, there are artifacts.

I believe they could fix this if they wanted to, but very likely it would add extra burden on app developers and even more complexity.

I’m focusing mostly on Windows here, but macOS has its own issues; those are largely covered in my previous post.

What is to be done?

We can just put up with bad compositor performance, accepting the fact that windows just aren’t meant to resize smoothly (especially on Windows), latency is much worse than in the Apple II days, and batteries won’t last as long as they could.

But a better design is possible, with some hard engineering work, and I’ll outline what that might look like here. It’s in two parts, the first focused on performance, the second on power.

First, the compositor could be run to race the beam, using techniques similar to what is now done in the high performance emulation community. Essentially, this would resolve the latency issues.

In fact, with a beam racing design, latency improvement could be even greater than one frame, without reintroducing tearing. It could actually get close to Apple II standards, and here’s how. When pressing a key in, say, a text editor, the app would prepare and render a minimal damage region, and send that present request to the compositor. It is then treated as an atomic transaction. If the request arrives before the beam reaches the top of the damage region, it is scheduled for the current frame. Otherwise, the entire request is atomically deferred to the next frame. With this arrangement, updated pixels can begin flowing out of hardware scanout almost immediately after the keypress arrives. And unlike the days of Apple II, it would do so without tearing.

Keep in mind that the existing compositor design is much more forgiving with respect to missing deadlines. Generally, the compositor should produce a new frame (when apps are updating) every 16ms, but if it misses the deadline, the worst that can happen is just jank, which people are used to, rather than visual artifacts.

The major engineering challenge of a beam racing design is ensuring that the compositing work reliably completes before scanout begins on the image data. As the experience of realtime audio illuminates, it’s hard enough scheduling CPU tasks to reliably complete before timing deadlines, and it seems like GPUs are even harder to schedule with timing guarantees. The compositor has to be scheduled with higher priority than other workloads, and has to be able to preempt them (when experimenting with GPU compute, I’ve found that a long-running compute kernel in an ordinary user process can block the compositor; that kind of behavior would be totally unacceptable in a beam-racing configuration). As with audio, there are also interactions with power management, so it needs to be scheduled earlier when the GPU is clocked down, and the downclocking step needs to be deferred until after the chunk of work is done. All this requires deep systems-level engineering work. I’m definitely not saying it’s easy, but it should nonetheless be possible. And I believe that the benefits of doing this work will apply in many other domains, not least of which is VR, so perhaps there is some hope it might happen someday.

Hardware tiling

A beam racing compositor design has appealing performance characteristics, but is more than a bit scary when it comes to power consumption. In addition, it’s not clear how it would interact with hardware overlays.

I’m not a hardware designer, but it seems to me there is a solution to both issues. Instead of having hardware overlays based on large rectangular regions, updated only at vsync boundaries, make them work at finer granularity, let’s say for concreteness 16x16 pixel tiles. The metadata for these tiles would be a couple orders of magnitude less than the pixel data, so they can reasonably be computed even on CPU, though I see no reason not to use GPU compute for the task.

Basically, when there are dynamic changes such as new window or resize, the compositor task would recompute a classification of tiles into “simple” and “complex”. A simple tile is one that can be computed in hardware. Let’s say for concreteness that it consists of a rectangular subregion from one texture buffer superimposed over a background from another texture buffer; this arrangement would ensure that the vast majority of tiles in simple overlapping window configurations would be simple. I’m ignoring shadows for now, as they could either be pre-rendered (shadows are likely to fall on non-animating content), or there could be more hardware layers.

For a simple tile, the compositor just uploads the metadata to the hardware. For a complex tile, the compositor schedules the tile to be rendered by the beam racing renderer, then uploads metadata just pointing to the target render texture. The only real difference between simple and complex tiles is the power consumption and contention for GPU global memory bandwidth.

I think this design can work effectively without much changing the compositor API, but if it really works as tiles under the hood, that opens up an intriguing possibility: the interface to applications might be redefined at a lower level to work with tiles. A sophisticated application such as a browser might be able to express animations and nested scrolling behavior at a more fine grained level using these tiles than traditional CALayer style API calls. But that’s speculative.

In reviewing an earlier draft, Patrick Walton points out that in applications where power consumption is paramount, the tiling approach on its own (without beam racing) might dramatically help on that front, without having to significantly rework APIs or scheduling strategies. And indeed I have heard rumors that some mobile chips do this, but have not been able to confirm from any public sources. Even so, if we’re going to redesign the world, I’d like to see beam racing as part of that work, so we can finally do something about latency.

The Linux community is not standing still, and there is a lot of interesting work in improving compositor performance. Following is a bit of a raw dump of resources.

The Linux community has perhaps more leeway than the proprietary platforms to explore different approaches to these problems, so it’s possible good answers will come from those directions. Unfortunately, a full solution seems to need hardware as well, which depends on mainstream suppliers and support.

Workarounds in applications

In the meantime, applications need to make very difficult tradeoffs. Using the full capabilities of the compositor API can make scrolling, transitions, and other effects happen more smoothly and with less GPU power consumption than taking on the rendering tasks themselves. About a year ago, Mozilla made changes to leverage the compositor more on macOS, and was able to show fairly dramatic power usage improvements.

At the same time, exposing compositor capability in a cross-platform way seems harder than exposing GPU rendering, and as WebGPU lands that will be even more true. And, as mentioned, it may get in the way of the benefits of DirectFlip.

Making the right tradeoff here is a complex balance also depending on the type of application and overall complexity. If the compositor weren’t evil, it wouldn’t force us to make these kinds of tradeoffs. Maybe someday.


When it was first introduced in Mac OS X, the compositor was a dramatic step forward in the appearance of desktop GUI. However, since the very beginning that has come at a performance cost. In the time since, the fundamental architecture hasn’t changed, and the additional frame and a half of latency it introduces hasn’t gone away. Thus, when various subcommunities demand better performance, they’re done through complex workarounds that cause other problems in the system. Even though building a better compositor would be hard, I think it might reduce overall system complexity.

In the meantime, it seems likely we’ll continue piling up more hacks and workarounds. Hopefully, this post has at least explained a bit why things are they way they are.

Thanks to Patrick Walton for a series of provocative conversations around these topics. Also thanks to Tristan Hume for doing a bunch of the legwork tracking down references, particularly recent Linux work. Check out Tristan’s latency measuring project as well.

Discuss on Hacker News.