All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=660560

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg_Y_eqAoM


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

win-zenbook

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997520676649664864

===== 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@427980  965.832  121.816  18  good
chromium@428016  959.049  117.766  18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 660560

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_ko_th_vi
Test Metric: timeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/http___vnexpress.net_
Relative Change: 5.06%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/574
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997520676649664864


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6121127791820800

| 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/8997436031395459232

Re-running bisect on cleaner test data and w/ wider range...

Bisect failed: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_10_perf_bisect/builds/765
Failure reason: the build has failed.
Additional errors:
The metric was not found in the test output.
Either of the initial "good" or "bad" revisions failed to be tested or built.

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8993073037590826192

===== BISECT JOB RESULTS =====
Status: failed


=== Bisection aborted ===
The bisect was aborted because Bisect cannot identify a culprit: 
Please contact the the team (see below) if you believe this is in error.

===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N   Good?
chromium@428133  762.448  921.894  21  good
chromium@428183  797.753  485.96   21  unknown
chromium@428232  1051.1   2608.83  21  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_10_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 660560

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=http...www.ebay.es.sch.i.html..sacat.382..trkparms.clkid.3D6548971389060485883..qi.RTM1381637 page_cycler_v2.intl_es_fr_pt-BR
Test Metric: timeToFirstContentfulPaint_avg/pcv1-cold/http___www.ebay.es_sch_i.html?_sacat_382__trkparms_clkid%3D6548971389060485883__qi_RTM1381637
Relative Change: 37.86%

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_10_perf_bisect/builds/812
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8993073037590826192


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5218997463678976

| 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/8982651746825803536

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
NO Perf regression found

Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64_10_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : page_cycler_v2.intl_es_fr_pt-BR
  Metric       : timeToFirstContentfulPaint_avg/pcv1-cold/http___www.ebay.es_sch_i.html?_sacat_382__trkparms_clkid%3D6548971389060485883__qi_RTM1381637

Revision             Result                  N
chromium@428133      788.194 +- 1204.47      21      good
chromium@428232      936.348 +- 1871.19      21      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=http...www.ebay.es.sch.i.html..sacat.382..trkparms.clkid.3D6548971389060485883..qi.RTM1381637 page_cycler_v2.intl_es_fr_pt-BR

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982651746825803536

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5218997463678976


| 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 Speed>Bisection.  Thank you!

Obsolete, but the test is still noisy as hell. Suggest the owner look into fixing that, if possible (maybe this particular content is not a good test case?).