All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=600292

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgyM_8sgoM


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

android-nexus5X

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


===== SUSPECTED CL(s) =====
Subject : Simplify Supplementables post Oilpan.
Author  : sigbjornf
Commit description:
  
R=
BUG= 585328 

Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1851743002

Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#384689}
Commit  : d1d6aed914d6333d4a1c6efb6b9e76d24498bed1
Date    : Fri Apr 01 21:10:28 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                Mean Value  Std. Dev.   Num Values  Good?
chromium@384674         136.432783  24.15328    12          good
chromium@384683         146.152188  1.032059    5           good
chromium@384687         142.165821  26.21846    8           good
chromium@384688         144.70064   7.639588    8           good
chromium@384689         121.429728  17.231279   5           bad         <-
chromium@384691         125.548193  13.217041   8           bad
chromium@384708         129.247241  13.852714   8           bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 600292

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.bindings
Test Metric: create-element/create-element
Relative Change: 6.67%
Score: 80.0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5X_perf_bisect/builds/45
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9016317873933109792


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=600292

| 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 component Tests>AutoBisect.  Thank you!

Hi, I, performance regression sheriff, detected a regression with this change.
Is this regression for bindings expected?

I'd say this is a noise.

The representation of Supplement(able) didn't change other than we removed some intermediary classes (SupplementableTracing<> and SupplementableBase<>), so I don't see how this could have a perf impact.

Supplementables (Document, LocalFrame etc) aren't plentiful nor rapidly allocated either.

Oops, agreed. It detected a noise.
Sorry for bothering you. I ran many bisect yesterday, and noise check wasn't enough.