All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=627854

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgsseUuwoM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgspC1pAoM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg0peasgsM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgsq6oqAoM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgspanoAoM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgsrLovgoM


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

chromium-rel-win10
chromium-rel-win7-gpu-ati
chromium-rel-win7-gpu-intel
chromium-rel-win7-x64-dual
chromium-rel-win8-dual
linux-release

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007238313969506624

===== 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@404134  11595211  658139   17  good
chromium@404140  11454068  77329.4  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_8_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 627854

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests top_10_mobile_memory_ignition
Test Metric: memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:effective_size_avg/http___en.m.wikipedia.org_wiki_Science
Relative Change: 0.18%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_8_perf_bisect/builds/2027
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9007238313969506624


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5257259521671168

| 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!

Jochen - Mythri bisected this down to your CL "Remove constructor from remaining functions that aren't constructors" - https://codereview.chromium.org/2124183003. Do you have any idea why that CL could have caused a regression in the amount of memory used by V8?

the "bad" is lower, but lower is better for that metric (and according to this, the metric goes down)

The metric looks at the average, however, the peak didn't change, so it's not really a regression anyways

I guess my change could influence GC timing, so the avg might change? I'd say WontFix

This wasn't looking at the bisect in comment #4 - that bisect failed. Mythri did the bisect manually and saw the increase on the graphs.

Agreed that max didn't change though, so probably just an influence of GC timing. Let's mark wontfix.

Mythri: Did we fix the issue with avg recording zero values yet?

Not yet, will do it soon. This week or next.