All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=648908

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg-YP0tAoM


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

linux-release

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9000920617286367344

===== 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@419548  16.6584  0.00727838  18  good
chromium@419652  16.6576  0.0074241   18  bad

Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 648908

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.image_decoding_cases
Test Metric: frame_times/frame_times
Relative Change: 0.04%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6719
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9000920617286367344


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5255234216001536

| 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!

Even on the bad revision, it shows a good result as reference does.
Could be a device reason?

May I assign today's bot sheriff.

Reassigning to bisect experts

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9000701102850846864

It looks like it's not clear which point on the graph regressed. Trying a bisect with a wider range.

===== 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@419514  16.6598  0.011012    18  good
chromium@419688  16.6606  0.00686671  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 648908

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.image_decoding_cases
Test Metric: frame_times/frame_times
Relative Change: 0.00%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6724
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9000701102850846864


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6362043395866624

| 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/8999519355585947808

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


===== SUSPECTED CL(s) =====
Subject : cc: Remove estimated parent draw time from renderer
Author  : enne
Commit description:
  
This is a display scheduler only concept now that unified begin frame is
turned on.  Renderers can just use the deadline passed to them from the
top level begin frame source.

This fixes a regression from https://codereview.chromium.org/2299003002
where Android was using the incorrect parent estimated draw time of
none and so thought it had less time for frames than it did.

R=brianderson@chromium.org
BUG= 646377 
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2352823002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#419617}
Commit  : bfdea7f114aded7866981b8bfe3edd0c75155f12
Date    : Tue Sep 20 01:11:26 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev    N   Good?
chromium@419548  16.6887  0.0456316  8   good
chromium@419583  16.668   0.0284383  8   good
chromium@419601  16.6707  0.0116076  8   good
chromium@419610  16.6748  0.0216417  8   good
chromium@419614  16.6814  0.0196581  8   good
chromium@419616  16.6693  0.0109706  12  good
chromium@419617  16.8107  0.111746   12  bad    <--
chromium@419618  16.8162  0.162867   8   bad
chromium@419688  16.8592  0.125845   8   bad

Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 648908

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.image_decoding_cases
Test Metric: frame_times/frame_times
Relative Change: 1.03%
Score: 95.0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6754
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8999519355585947808


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5880296476508160

| 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!