All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=660166

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgvcfprgoM,agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgvd_0qwoM


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

win-zenbook

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997614147104473632

===== 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@427562  249.548  2.99385  18  good
chromium@427626  250.793  3.49065  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 660166

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests page_cycler_v2.intl_ar_fa_he
Test Metric: timeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/http___www.google.com.sa_
Relative Change: 0.36%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/571
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997614147104473632


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5347073484914688

| 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!

Looks like there might not be a regression, but something made the results more volatile recently. Assigning to owner for further triage...

I'm pretty certain that this is from the multi-renderer proc support

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+log/1b5df0c36af06d0963a77b7103088d3a63648e02%5E..828578c64ba3f0e43f067655af29c1cd425a2ed3?pretty=fuller

+ksakamoto to decide further actions

I don't think the multi-renderer process support caused this.
The trace for www.google.com.sa has only one renderer process. (FCP/FMP are logged twice due to https://github.com/catapult-project/catapult/issues/2962)

This was swamped out by a later improvement.