All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=681646

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDgoJC-6wgM


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

android-one

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8990283501596691680

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

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


=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Perf regression found with culprit

Suspected Commit
  Author : machenbach
  Commit : 8024d8f42e7b54fb6230c03f79162b1b8369571f
  Date   : Wed Jan 11 10:49:09 2017
  Subject: [foozzie] Add suppressions based on metadata.

Bisect Details
  Configuration: android_one_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : system_health.memory_mobile
  Metric       : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:effective_size_avg/load_news/load_news_hackernews
  Change       : 1.47% | 1942894.0 -> 1971508.0

Revision                           Result                  N
chromium@443216                    1942894 +- 30343.9      6      good
chromium@443236                    1937304 +- 33212.7      5      good
chromium@443246                    1940042 +- 15187.3      6      good
chromium@443251                    1940071 +- 27930.2      6      good
chromium@443252                    1944700 +- 24900.0      9      good
chromium@443252,v8@71f5650828      1953977 +- 28282.3      9      good
chromium@443252,v8@8024d8f42e      1968742 +- 222.503      9      bad       <--
chromium@443252,v8@8713dc5777      1982991 +- 30380.3      6      bad
chromium@443252,v8@fc241b9077      1971239 +- 20325.1      6      bad
chromium@443252,v8@1f55c1b5ae      1982082 +- 15185.1      6      bad
chromium@443253                    1970502 +- 34103.8      9      bad
chromium@443255                    1964925 +- 28179.5      9      bad
chromium@443294                    1971508 +- 20373.5      6      bad

Please refer to the following doc on diagnosing memory regressions:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/memory-infra/memory_benchmarks.md

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=load.news.hackernews system_health.memory_mobile

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8990283501596691680

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5841043653656576


| 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!

Bisect is slightly wrong. The fuzzer changes are not affecting code. Maybe https://chromium.googlesource.com/v8/v8/+/8713dc57775726e235d8449d7284ab411c3349d9 fits better? Leaving this to our memory triage though...

Looks like a small regression in code space that we gain back at Point ID 444092. Minor memory regressions are expected in general when adding CodeStubAssembler functions.

See https://chromeperf.appspot.com/report?sid=b44c0dc748ac12a7e33de7f51311e4e9e7cc966e2e0b75a7773b89cf8137f3a9