All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=626599

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg0vHTtAoM


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@403855  1908.33  119.088  18  good
chromium@403884  1841.03  185.638  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 626599

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler.basic_oopif
Test Metric: warm_times/page_load_time
Relative Change: 4.83%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6671
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007717258261839520


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5890506748329984

| 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!

The ref moved at the same time. Probably a false alert, closing.