All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=645306

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgkbLW_wkM


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

chromium-rel-mac11

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9002042990980037136

Bisect failed: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_10_11_perf_bisect/builds/880
Failure reason: the build has failed.
Additional errors:
The metric was not found in the test output.
Either of the initial "good" or "bad" revisions failed to be tested or built.

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8999798394219508192

Bisect failed: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_10_11_perf_bisect/builds/942
Failure reason: the build has failed.
Additional errors:
The metric was not found in the test output.
Either of the initial "good" or "bad" revisions failed to be tested or built.

Perf fixit: removing perf sheriff as owner of bugs to clarify that the rotation is responsible for triage.

1. I see some marked improvements since this regression.
2. Prior to this regression, it looks like we were still trying to figure out how to tune the metric.

Tim - can you comment on this? Is it worth investing in trying to find a bad CL at this point?

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8995707910586055776

The metric wasn't functioning correctly before the regression (0.5ms is too low).

I'd be fine dropping this, though I'm curious what triggered the change - nothing in the catapult rolls looked guilty, and I didn't see anything else particularly suspicious in my cursory glance.

Launched another bisect, but marked WontFix.

===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


=== Bisection aborted ===
The bisect was aborted because Bisect cannot identify a culprit: No values were found while testing the reference range.
Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error.

===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean      Std Dev   N   Good?
chromium@415607  0.987407  0.860285  27  good
chromium@416293  N/A       N/A       0   bad

Bisect job ran on: mac_10_11_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 645306

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=https...www.google.co.uk..hl.en.q.science page_cycler_v2.top_10_mobile
Test Metric: timeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/https___www.google.co.uk__hl_en_q_science
Relative Change: None

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_10_11_perf_bisect/builds/1035
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8995707910586055776


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6459348845330432

| 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!

FYI, the bisect failed because the metric wasn't functioning correctly; it didn't output any values for the end rev. Leaving this as WontFix without a follow up bug because there have been improvements to the metric.

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982592658240714912