All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=593674

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDA_5CXqwoM


Bot(s) for this bug's original alert(s):

win-zenbook

===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: completed


=== Bisection aborted ===
The bisect was aborted because The metric values for the initial "good" and "bad" revisions do not represent a clear regression.
Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error.

=== Warnings ===
The following warnings were raised by the bisect job:

 * Bisect failed to reproduce the regression with enough confidence.

===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                Mean Value  Std. Dev.   Num Values  Good?
chromium@379935         2116.822513 98.627926   8           good
chromium@380005         2194.268705 56.09119    7           bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 593674

Test Command: python src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler.intl_ko_th_vi
Test Metric: cold_times/page_load_time
Relative Change: 4.75%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/97
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9018581367625723440


| O O | Visit http://www.chromium.org/developers/speed-infra/perf-bug-faq
|  X  | for more information addressing perf regression bugs. For feedback,
| / \ | file a bug with label Cr-Tests-AutoBisect.  Thank you!