All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=623838

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgwp_QoQsM


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

chromium-rel-win7-gpu-ati

===== 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@401901  631.911  15.4523  18  good
chromium@401941  626.293  33.9981  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64ati_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 623838

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler.intl_ko_th_vi
Test Metric: warm_times/page_load_time
Relative Change: 3.86%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64ati_perf_bisect/builds/1398
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9008647852783928080


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5908786565349376

| 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!

Moving this nonessential bug to the next milestone.

For more details visit https://www.chromium.org/issue-tracking/autotriage - Your friendly Sheriffbot

This looks like it may have recovered, but it's hard to say if the improvement was related to this regression.

Lan, can you follow up?

===== 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@401901  629.653  9.58026  18  good
chromium@401941  627.564  9.5471   18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64ati_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 623838

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler.intl_ko_th_vi
Test Metric: warm_times/page_load_time
Relative Change: 1.14%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64ati_perf_bisect/builds/1425
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007426352658616320


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5775477256486912

| 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 test stopped providing any data since June 30, so mark it as WontFix for now.