All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=626327

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg0vLEvgkM


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@403924  6110910  220010   18  good
chromium@403936  6188727  153579   18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_8_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 626327

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests top_10_mobile_memory
Test Metric: memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:effective_size_avg/http___www.baidu.com_s?word_google
Relative Change: 0.52%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_8_perf_bisect/builds/2011
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007792840680607328


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5298690521038848

| 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!

===== 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@403900  6188436  171796   18  good
chromium@403950  6203463  115075   18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_8_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 626327

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests top_10_mobile_memory
Test Metric: memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:effective_size_avg/http___www.baidu.com_s?word_google
Relative Change: 1.71%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_8_perf_bisect/builds/2012
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007778563479701952


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5786495726649344

| 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!

Lets try again with more repeats.

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

Hi jochen@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 : Remove the prototype from all V8 functions that aren't constructors
Author  : jochen
Commit description:
  
BUG= 625823 
R=haraken@chromium.org
TBR=eroman@chromium.org,yzshen@chromium.org

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2126763002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#403888}
Commit  : 596fd5ed32fdcce384a3a5f6453582919bef6528
Date    : Wed Jul 06 12:31:13 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@403524  6353446  256458   8  good
chromium@403830  6525242  57501.4  5  good
chromium@403869  6497775  60369.2  5  good
chromium@403879  6499379  24334.8  5  good
chromium@403884  6525762  23886.8  5  good
chromium@403886  6519273  57400.1  5  good
chromium@403887  6514997  23098.5  5  good
chromium@403888  6243962  44482.0  5  bad    <--
chromium@403907  6142704  139670   5  bad
chromium@403983  6251737  58447.8  5  bad
chromium@404136  6159671  132497   8  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_8_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 626327

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests top_10_mobile_memory
Test Metric: memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:effective_size_avg/http___www.baidu.com_s?word_google
Relative Change: 2.13%
Score: 99.9

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_8_perf_bisect/builds/2015
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007718014894080864


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5875632941039616

| 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!

so in that bisect, my rev actually has a lower (i.e. better) value.

Also, in the graph, my CL is before the regression...

It look like the bot doesn't realize lower is better for this metric, +sulivan@ as an FYI.

yosin@ The bisect log suggests the memory regression is at chromium@403887. Could your patch (https://codereview.chromium.org/2126743002) have caused it?

Current alert says 403925:403936, My patch 403887 and before alter range.

It seems there is a high spike at 403902-403911 then low spike at 403912-403924.
Also, there is low spike at 404116-404120.
It seems this test is flaky...

Ulan points out that the graph for the renderer looks the same, so I guess it's a renderer regression. Also, the _max graph doesn't change, so I suspect it's the initial memory size that regressed (as the _avg is the average between the start and end size afaik)

Perf sheriff ping: reminder to follow up on possible performance issues

There's a subsequent regression on that chart that was marked WontFix:
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=628120

That chart ends when the benchmark moved to TBMv2 in August, IIUC.

Want to mark this bug WontFix?

Yeah we can drop this.