All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=665331

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgs92KoAoM


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

linux-release

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8995942887686487808

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


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

===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean       Std Dev   N    Good?
chromium@429771  0.0402583  0.238288  120  good
chromium@429824  0.0498     0.4659    120  bad

Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 665331

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests rasterize_and_record_micro.top_25
Test Metric: record_time/record_time
Relative Change: None

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6835
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8995942887686487808


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5829804081807360

| 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/8995936556517995920

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


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

===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Mean     Std Dev  N    Good?
chromium@429771  2.40008  9.12687  120  good
chromium@429824  2.47914  9.86996  120  bad

Bisect job ran on: linux_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 665331

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests rasterize_and_record_micro.top_25
Test Metric: rasterize_time/rasterize_time
Relative Change: None

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/linux_perf_bisect/builds/6837
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8995936556517995920


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5819506495062016

| 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!

+vmpstr for rasterize_and_record_micro benchmark ownership.

Note that the corresponding pixels rasterized / recorded is also increased by the same amount. This is likely due to a different sized window being recorded/rasterized so the viewport is different.

This doesn't seem like a real regression, although it's unclear why the viewport is different.

Note that this is also the reason it's not reproducing locally or during bisect: the window is the proper size during bisect it seems.