All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=649236

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgheGhoAoM


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

chromium-rel-win7-gpu-nvidia

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9000845356801633168

===== 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@419543  518.656  39.8108  18  good
chromium@419653  519.908  29.4408  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64nvidia_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 649236

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.canvas
Test Metric: putImageData/putImageData
Relative Change: 5.63%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64nvidia_perf_bisect/builds/1873
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9000845356801633168


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5033970117378048

| 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/9000473735547165888

===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: started


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N    Good?
chromium@419543  495.928  21.1769  8    good
chromium@419598  493.14   28.0512  12   good
chromium@419626  507.033  23.3566  210  good
chromium@419640  496.587  30.0707  210  good
chromium@419647  470.292  10.6013  8    good
chromium@419650  483.024  16.3676  5    good
chromium@419653  509.167  21.305   140  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64nvidia_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 649236

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.canvas
Test Metric: putImageData/putImageData
Relative Change: 5.52%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64nvidia_perf_bisect/builds/1877
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9000473735547165888


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5865040450682880

| 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!

CC: perfbot sheriff, since the bisect succeeded, but wasn't reported correctly as c#5.

Copy and paste results manually from https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=649236,
and assign ccameron@ who submitted the suspicious CL r419653.


2016-09-27 07:34:12 
===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: completed


===== SUSPECTED CL(s) =====
Subject : cc: Add conversion between gfx::ColorSpace and SkColorSpace
Author  : ccameron
Commit description:
  
Use the ICC profile to convert between the two for now. This is not
robust or efficient, but it is behind a development flag.

BUG= 44872 
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.blink:linux_precise_blink_rel

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2351823002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#419653}
Commit  : c37fc95428d69f46a528627fe3564cb53f8ce474
Date    : Tue Sep 20 02:31:28 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N    Good?
chromium@419543  495.928  21.1769  8    good
chromium@419598  493.14   28.0512  12   good
chromium@419626  507.033  23.3566  210  good
chromium@419640  496.587  30.0707  210  good
chromium@419647  470.292  10.6013  8    good
chromium@419650  474.376  17.3514  8    good
chromium@419652  471.068  18.7773  5    good
chromium@419653  509.167  21.305   140  bad    <--

Bisect job ran on: winx64nvidia_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 649236

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --also-run-disabled-tests blink_perf.canvas
Test Metric: putImageData/putImageData
Relative Change: 5.52%
Score: 99.9

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64nvidia_perf_bisect/builds/1877
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/9000473735547165888


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5865040450682880

| 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!

Re #6 I've filed https://github.com/catapult-project/catapult/issues/2869 to investigate the bisect issues, thanks!

All of that is behind a flag and shouldn't ever be called... so the fact that it's causing any sort of regression is suspicious.

Yeah, those bisect results are suspicious. But either way, this has recovered.