All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=659053

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg3bCXpgoM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg3ca0sQoM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg3ea3uAoM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgnd_StwkM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg3dHUpAkM


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

chromium-rel-mac-retina
chromium-rel-win7-dual
chromium-rel-win7-gpu-ati
chromium-rel-win7-gpu-intel
linux-release

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997836215868643776

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


===== SUSPECTED CL(s) =====
Subject : [compiler] Mark shared functions for optimization
Author  : leszeks
Commit description:
  
The current method of marking functions for optimization, which replaces
the JSFunction's code object with one that triggers optimization, would
never allow unnamed functions to be optimized. This is an issue for a
style of programming which heavily relies on passing around closures.

This patch sets a bit on the SharedFunctionInfo when a JSFunction is
marked. When another JSFunction referring to the same SharedFunctionInfo
is lazily compiled, it immediately triggers a non-concurrent optimize.

BUG= v8:5512 

Review-Url: https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/2437043002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#40506}
Commit  : 4a31323e973e0a03403a53c601dfd4f0237532e8
Date    : Fri Oct 21 13:13:07 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean   Std Dev   N  Good?
chromium@426792                189.8  0.83666   5  good
chromium@426811                190.0  0.707107  5  good
chromium@426821                190.4  0.547723  5  good
chromium@426823                190.0  1.0       5  good
chromium@426823,v8@a8e30c0e68  190.2  1.09545   5  good
chromium@426823,v8@a4ff04ab13  190.2  0.83666   5  good
chromium@426823,v8@4a31323e97  187.2  0.447214  5  bad    <--
chromium@426823,v8@dd614f55ce  186.4  0.894427  5  bad
chromium@426824                185.4  2.07364   5  bad
chromium@426826                186.6  1.14018   5  bad
chromium@426830                186.2  0.83666   5  bad

Bisect job ran on: mac_retina_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 659053

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests jetstream
Test Metric: Score/Score
Relative Change: 1.90%
Score: 99.5

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/mac_retina_perf_bisect/builds/1762
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997836215868643776


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6449665342439424

| 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!