All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=671982

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICgi63k8goM


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

android-nexus5

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8993942436720670256

===== 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@430884  57475679  3746874  27  good
chromium@431631  57434112  3641227  27  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_nexus5_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 671982

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=blank.about.blank system_health.memory_mobile
Test Metric: memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:gpu_memory:proportional_resident_size_avg/blank_about/blank_about_blank
Relative Change: 0.07%

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_nexus5_perf_bisect/builds/4415
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8993942436720670256


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5858918213877760

| 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 was an improvement, not a regression (possibly created an issue for the wrong indicator in the graph).  A bug has since been opened for the regression later in the graph.

OK for this to remain WontFix. But note that trying to bisect the improvement was deliberate, see #0.

The idea in this case is that bisecting the improvement can also help identifying the culprit of the regression. It doesn't seem to be helping that much in this particular case, though.

Also note that in general we often bisect improvements to make sure this is an intended change and not, e.g., using less memory due to a bug causing resources to fail loading.

Bisect probably failed to reproduce due to  crbug.com/671156