All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=633945

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgpv_ksgoM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg5symtQkM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgpqGHrgoM


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

chromium-rel-win7-dual
chromium-rel-win7-x64-dual
chromium-rel-win8-dual

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005355193047055728

===== 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@409199  599834  471277   12  good
chromium@409211  872928  308430   8   bad

Bisect job ran on: win_8_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 633945

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_desktop
Test Metric: load_news-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:skia:effective_size_avg/load_news_bbc
Relative Change: 34.12%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/win_8_perf_bisect/builds/2087
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005355193047055728


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5796733561339904

| 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/9005164978545044656

===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: completed


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean    Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@409184  494052  4546.76  5  good
chromium@409189  503650  7829.63  5  good
chromium@409190  501698  5839.33  5  good
chromium@409191  862694  5974.34  5  bad
chromium@409192  864198  5000.38  5  bad
chromium@409194  859869  6453.79  5  bad
chromium@409204  861839  4437.1   5  bad
chromium@409226  861286  7757.32  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 633945

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests system_health.memory_desktop
Test Metric: load_news-memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:skia:effective_size_avg/load_news_bbc
Relative Change: 74.33%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/357
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9005164978545044656


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5908973639696384

| 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!

I don't know why the bisect bot didn't descend (+cc sullivan) into the culprit Skia roll (r409191, https://codereview.chromium.org/2199293002), but it contains only one patch (https://codereview.chromium.org/2195893002) anyway.

reed: The bisect identified your patch as the most likely culprit causing this regression:

  chromium@409190  501698  5839.33  5  good
  chromium@409191  862694  5974.34  5  bad

Please decide on the next course of action. Thanks!

Same as  issue 633941 ?