All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=617714

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg3LLauQoM


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

chromium-rel-win7-single

===== 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       Std Dev     N   Good?
chromium@397522  0.038232   0.0037303   12  good
chromium@397601  0.0378216  0.00354485  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 617714

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests scheduler.tough_scheduling_cases
Test Metric: queueing_durations/queueing_durations
Relative Change: 5.27%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6575
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9010577876459571680


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5801551755476992

| 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!

This looks like it may be starting to recover, but I kicked off another bisect: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9008935922925278384

===== 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       Std Dev     N   Good?
chromium@397522  0.0169321  0.00188793  12  good
chromium@397601  0.0185791  0.00350809  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 617714

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests scheduler.tough_scheduling_cases
Test Metric: queueing_durations/div_touch_handler.html
Relative Change: 15.73%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6615
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9008935922925278384


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5814384861904896

| 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!

Recovered indeed.