All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=632659

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgxsWBvQoM


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

chromium-rel-win7-dual

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005812337875224752

===== 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@408338  21.2974  0.445739  18  good
chromium@408354  21.1652  0.278597  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 632659

Test Command: .\src\out\Release\performance_browser_tests.exe --test-launcher-print-test-stdio=always --enable-gpu
Test Metric: CastV2Performance_gpu_30fps_fast/capture_duration
Relative Change: 1.53%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6752
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005812337875224752


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5849390195933184

| 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!

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005541031927996032

Trying another bisect.

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005521219412955216

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005430072754262144

Bisect failed: Unknown
Failure reason: the build has failed.
Additional errors:
The revision range could not be expanded, or the commit positions could not be resolved into commit hashes.

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9004793969454321904

===== 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@408338  21.2617  0.387135  18  good
chromium@408354  21.099   0.229382  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 632659

Test Command: .\src\out\Release\performance_browser_tests.exe --test-launcher-print-test-stdio=always --enable-gpu
Test Metric: CastV2Performance_gpu_30fps_fast/capture_duration
Relative Change: 0.72%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6784
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005430072754262144


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5832216702091264

| 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!

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

miu: this only regressed on one bot, and bisect can't repro. it's not clear the exact revision range of the regressions. Anything we can do to debug?

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8999610195677051856

Fixit ping: I kicked off a slightly wider bisect. Meantime, miu: any thoughts on comment #12?

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

Hi robliao@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 : Revert of Reland: Geolocation: move from content/browser to device/ (patchset #2 id:20001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2185993003/ )
Author  : robliao
Commit description:
  
Reason for revert:
Build failure:
FAILED: obj/device/geolocation/device_geolocation.network_location_request.obj
ninja -t msvc -e environment.x64 -- "C:\b\depot_tools\win_toolchain\vs_files\95ddda401ec5678f15eeed01d2bee08fcbc5ee97\VC\bin\amd64\cl.exe" /nologo /showIncludes /FC @obj\device\geolocation\device_geolocation.network_location_request.obj.rsp /c ..\..\device\geolocation\network_location_request.cc /Foobj\device\geolocation\device_geolocation.network_location_request.obj /Fdobj\device\geolocation\device_geolocation.cc.pdb
c:\b\build\slave\win64_trunk\build\src\device\geolocation\network_location_request.cc(119): error C2220: warning treated as error - no 'object' file generated
c:\b\build\slave\win64_trunk\build\src\device\geolocation\network_location_request.cc(119): warning C4267: 'argument': conversion from 'size_t' to 'int', possible loss of data

Original issue's description:
> Reland: Geolocation: move from content/browser to device/
>
> Original CL was reverted because it broke Win Gyp Component-build
> bot(s). This CL (PS2) defines the geolocation gyp component
> correctly.
>
> Original CL description ------------------------------------------------
> Geolocation: move from content/browser to device/
>
> This CL:
>
> - moves all of content/browser/geolocation to device/geolocation
> - the public geolocation files in content/common/{browser, public}
>  are also relocated to device/geolocation
> - the geolocation-specific unittests are compiled into
>  (already existing) device_unittests
> - adds new fancy new device/geolocation BUILD.gn  and
>  geolocation.gyp as well
> - makes a component of geolocation (at least for gn) and that forces
>  adding geolocation_export.h (like other //device/ folders).
> - Java Geolocation files are moved as well, and a new
>  geolocation_jni_registrar is added.
> - classes are moved to device namespace.
>
> All paths and include/call sites updated, DEPS, BUILD.gn files,
> gypi files etc.
>
> Some tricks:
> - can't use BrowserThread::CurrentlyOn, etc; instead, the
>  task runner is cached on constructor and used for both thread
>  checking and PostTask()ing (a few unittest and wifi_data_provider*
>  needed that substitution).
> - GeolocationServiceContext is moved to public/cpp so it can
>  be referenced from WebContentsImpl.
> - MockLocationProvider.java is also moved to device/geolocation.
>
> BUG= 612334 
> CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
>
> TBR=pstew@chromium.org
> rationale:device/geolocation depends on dbus and this triggers
> a DEPS presubmit rule -- however, this CL adds no new dependencies,
> hence moving on in the interest of speed (and avoiding more rebases).
>
> Committed: https://crrev.com/cc322ebcb1c911072c8dc4fc38d41c1a41c426b7
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408272}

TBR=pstew@chromium.org,mcasas@chromium.org
# Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago.
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG= 612334 

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2188933002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408303}
Commit  : 6a5f51a5304bdcff7eea91f71be843b72c160d94
Date    : Thu Jul 28 01:20:55 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev   N  Good?
chromium@408218  18.2355  0.415301  5  good
chromium@408261  18.0765  0.273462  5  good
chromium@408282  17.831   0.195088  5  good
chromium@408293  18.1922  0.502312  5  good
chromium@408299  18.4319  0.676142  5  good
chromium@408301  18.0553  0.224037  5  good
chromium@408302  17.9265  0.142958  5  good
chromium@408303  21.3936  0.557357  5  bad    <--
chromium@408390  21.2982  0.245827  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: win_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 632659

Test Command: .\src\out\Release\performance_browser_tests.exe --test-launcher-print-test-stdio=always --enable-gpu
Test Metric: CastV2Performance_gpu_30fps_fast/capture_duration
Relative Change: 16.79%
Score: 99.9

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_perf_bisect/builds/6977
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8999610195677051856


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5810289583325184

| 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!

Redirecting to mcasas@, author of the original CL.

There have been ups and downs since this regression point, so I'm going to consider it noise.