All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=660558

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg_aWqogkM


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

android-nexus5

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997520800016314896

===== 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@428018  12053617  24929.3  18  good
chromium@428048  12055900  22114.8  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 660558

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests memory.top_10_mobile_stress
Test Metric: memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:effective_size_avg/foreground/http_m_youtube_com_results_q_science
Relative Change: 0.00%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5_perf_bisect/builds/4304
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997520800016314896


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5898664604598272

| 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/8997435506151738368

Re-running bisect w/ wider range. The volatility in the test results seem to be breaking the usual auto-triage process.

=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author bbudge@chromium.org ===

Hi bbudge@chromium.org, the bisect results pointed to your CL below as possibly
causing a regression. Please have a look at this info and see whether
your CL be related.


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


===== SUSPECTED CL(s) =====
Subject : [Turbofan] Add concept of FP register aliasing on ARM 32.
Author  : bbudge
Commit description:
  
- Modifies RegisterConfiguration to specify complex aliasing on ARM 32.
- Modifies RegisterAllocator to consider aliasing.
- Modifies ParallelMove::PrepareInsertAfter to handle aliasing.
- Modifies GapResolver to split wider register moves when interference
with smaller moves is detected.
- Modifies MoveOptimizer to handle aliasing.
- Adds ARM 32 macro-assembler pseudo move instructions to handle cases where
  split moves don't correspond to actual s-registers.
- Modifies CodeGenerator::AssembleMove and AssembleSwap to handle moves of
  different widths, and moves involving pseudo-s-registers.
- Adds unit tests for FP operand interference checking and PrepareInsertAfter.
- Adds more tests of FP for the move optimizer and register allocator.

LOG=N
BUG= v8:4124 

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2410673002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#40597}
Commit  : 09ab8e6ad9440d15f3083a44ca0c1ab3ae84a036
Date    : Wed Oct 26 16:04:33 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision                       Mean      Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@427957                11992095  70554.6  5  good
chromium@427979                12047175  99842.2  5  good
chromium@427990                12010303  92379.9  5  good
chromium@427995                11994848  117684   8  good
chromium@427998                12010420  116812   8  good
chromium@427998,v8@f6c3fd0a74  11958206  104396   5  good
chromium@427998,v8@09ab8e6ad9  12187934  37960.6  5  bad    <--
chromium@427998,v8@46a1b34e86  12187333  36492.9  5  bad
chromium@427998,v8@ff5194e3ce  12181399  68200.1  5  bad
chromium@427998,v8@24d38be132  12189116  35087.7  8  bad
chromium@427999                12186750  49363.2  8  bad
chromium@428000                12230455  32649.2  8  bad
chromium@428043                12206182  63107.1  5  bad
chromium@428129                12222477  48563.3  5  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 660558

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=http.m.youtube.com.results.q.science memory.top_10_mobile_stress
Test Metric: memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:effective_size_avg/foreground/http_m_youtube_com_results_q_science
Relative Change: 1.92%
Score: 99.0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5_perf_bisect/builds/4305
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997435506151738368


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5800911954247680

| 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!

These look to have recovered, and I'm not convinced by the bisect result in any case.