All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=661540

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg_Z6LugsM


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

win-zenbook

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997106682675023168

===== 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@427677  536.572  14.0718  18  good
chromium@427782  531.288  13.727   18  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 661540

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_ja_zh
Test Metric: timeToFirstContentfulPaint_avg/pcv1-warm/http___kakaku.com_
Relative Change: 2.03%
Score: 0

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/581
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8997106682675023168


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5852336738533376

| 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!

This has recovered (and then some).