All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=626603

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg0vH0sAoM


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@403813  1043.44  157.388  18  good
chromium@403824  1047.98  148.176  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_8_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 626603

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler.intl_ar_fa_he
Test Metric: cold_times/page_load_time
Relative Change: 5.18%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_8_perf_bisect/builds/2017
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007717212214772752


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5860611829792768

| 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.