Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8993090520101251264

=== TEST FAILURE ===


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

Hi chfremer@chromium.org, the bisect results pointed to your CL, please take a look at the
results.


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


===== SUSPECTED CL(s) =====
Subject : [Mojo Video Capture] Replace method OnIncomingCapturedVideoFrame() with OnIncomingCapturedBufferExt()
Author  : chfremer
Commit description:
  
In interface media:VideoCaptureDevice::Client, replaced the method
OnIncomingCapturedVideoFrame() with OnIncomingCapturedBufferExt(). Compared to
method OnIncomingCaptureBuffer(), the VideoFrame parameter in
OnIncomingCapturedVideoFrame() was only used for passing along a bit of extra
information, namely a custom |visible_rect| as well as some
|additional_metadata|. The new method makes the intent clear and eliminates the
need for passing a media::VideoFrame that is partly redundant with the also
passed media::VideoCaptureDevice::Client::Buffer.

This CL breaks the video_capture_unittests, because current implementation of
the video_capture service wants to use VideoCaptureDeviceClient with buffers
that are backed by MojoSharedMemoryBufferTracker instances instead of the "regular" shared memory buffers. With this CL, VideoCaptureDeviceClient is
dropping support for this. We are working towards making the video_capture
service work with the regular buffers. To keep CLs small, we defer changes
to the service to after refactorings of VideoCaptureController and
VideoCaptureManager are complete and deactive the video_capture_unittests
temporarily. This is acceptable for the time being, since they are not run on
the bots yet. The CL that re-enables them is currently labeled CL1.9.22 in the
design doc.

This CL is part of the Mojo Video Capture work. For the bigger picture,
see [1] CL1.9.9

BUG=584797
TEST=
  content_unittests --gtest_filter="*Video*",
  video_capture_unittests,
  Apprtc loopback on Debug,
  Desktop Capture Example extension on Release

[1] https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/document/d/1Qw7rw1AJy0QHXjha36jZNiEuxsxWslJ_X-zpOhijvI8/edit?usp=sharing

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2566983007
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#438673}
Commit  : ae6dc27e5d3233ceeb8397debaa745577b3312da
Date    : Wed Dec 14 23:39:14 2016


===== TESTED REVISIONS =====
Revision         Exit Code  Std Dev  N  Good?
chromium@438666  0          N/A      1  good
chromium@438670  0          N/A      1  good
chromium@438672  0          N/A      1  good
chromium@438673  1          N/A      1  bad    <--
chromium@438674  1          N/A      1  bad
chromium@438681  1          N/A      1  bad
chromium@438696  1          N/A      1  bad
chromium@438725  1          N/A      1  bad

Bisect job ran on: android_one_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 675020

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=720p.call.45s webrtc.peerconnection
Test Metric: application_energy_consumption_mwh/720p_call_45s
Relative Change: 0.00%

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/android_one_perf_bisect/builds/1880
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8993090520101251264


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6371913788555264

| 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!