All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=677151

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgICg7_e86wkM


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

win-zenbook

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8992106459741871632

===== 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@440165  17.6469  89.7383  156  good
chromium@440320  17.6941  88.7179  156  bad

Bisect job ran on: winx64_zen_perf_bisect
Bug ID: 677151

Test Command: src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests media.tough_video_cases
Test Metric: energy_consumption_mwh/energy_consumption_mwh
Relative Change: 0.27%

Buildbot stdio: http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.perf/builders/winx64_zen_perf_bisect/builds/638
Job details: https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8992106459741871632


Not what you expected? We'll investigate and get back to you!
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5317643165237248

| 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!

Recovered, but now there appears to be a different regression.

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8982620171092359776