All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=619015

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgvPn4tAoM


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

chromium-rel-win8-dual

===== 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@398123  231.698  1.50458  18  good
chromium@398156  232.51   1.80834  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_8_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 619015

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.bindings
Test Metric: insert-before/insert-before
Relative Change: 0.49%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_8_perf_bisect/builds/1959
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9010235602942925168


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5800163004645376

| 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!

Re-kicked with a wider range

===== 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@398080  230.25   5.06924  18  good
chromium@398323  230.342  2.64828  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_8_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 619015

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.bindings
Test Metric: insert-before/insert-before
Relative Change: 0.86%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_8_perf_bisect/builds/1960
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9010224520946079440


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5895872726958080

| 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!

Kicked with MUCH wider range.  General trend down is going to be hard (if not impossible) to bisect

=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author dgozman@chromium.org ===

Hi dgozman@chromium.org, the bisect results pointed to your CL below as possibly
causing a regression. Please have a look at this info and see whether
your CL be related.


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


===== SUSPECTED CL(s) =====
Subject : Fix crash in blocked input event warning.
Author  : dgozman
Commit description:
  
If event does not come from JS, we should enter the context scope.

BUG=617229

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2039453003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#397928}
Commit  : ba936770ca24f657b27361611cc0a0e4939c080b
Date    : Sat Jun 04 16:00:53 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev   N   Good?
chromium@397369  231.793  1.17492   18  good
chromium@397653  229.827  4.09765   18  good
chromium@397794  231.904  1.03403   8   good
chromium@397856  231.086  4.37915   8   good
chromium@397896  230.404  2.18571   12  good
chromium@397916  231.494  2.92254   8   good
chromium@397927  230.345  1.3959    8   good
chromium@397928  226.996  3.07947   8   bad    <--
chromium@397929  227.842  1.40956   8   bad
chromium@397930  227.5    1.28387   8   bad
chromium@397932  228.39   0.769174  5   bad
chromium@397936  227.902  1.6163    12  bad
chromium@398502  225.63   1.41771   5   bad

Bisect job ran on: win_8_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 619015

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.bindings
Test Metric: insert-before/insert-before
Relative Change: 2.36%
Score: 99.5

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_8_perf_bisect/builds/1965
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9009963839506098320


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5836885109243904

| 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 cannot be my change as it has nothing to do with bindings and requires some specific DevTools interaction to even execute the changed code.

Closing.  The test is too noisy to narrow it down and it has degraded over too long of a period.