All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=692942

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDguISl5wgM


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

chromium-rel-win7-dual

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8987514828619942832

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect was unable to run to completion

Error: INFRA_FAILURE

The bisect was able to narrow the range, you can try running with:
  good_revision: f63ac52a3a74c9856d6fead1b1fb26a4948b35fe
  bad_revision : 3aac9a6f4949e33dfe3045326ce6afda6293667d

If failures persist contact the team (see below) and report the error.


Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : smoothness.tough_animation_cases
  Metric       : frame_times/frame_times

Revision             Result                    N
chromium@450319      19.4544 +- 0.0381875      9      good
chromium@450349      19.4411 +- 0.0208409      6      good
chromium@450364      19.4256 +- 0.0196167      6      good
chromium@450371      19.5603 +- 0.0696931      6      bad
chromium@450378      19.5252 +- 0.161408       9      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.tough_animation_cases

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8987514828619942832

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6184988510257152


| 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 Speed>Bisection.  Thank you!

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8986921452668431408

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect was unable to run to completion

Error: INFRA_FAILURE

The bisect was able to narrow the range, you can try running with:
  good_revision: 679ec32b1ab9d0fe56cfec0642b7cadffc815beb
  bad_revision : d892f9592860691ae9a782c12260c94ed6bd1a63

If failures persist contact the team (see below) and report the error.


Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_x64_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : smoothness.tough_animation_cases
  Metric       : frame_times/frame_times

Revision             Result                    N
chromium@450318      19.4828 +- 0.0379283      6      good
chromium@450350      19.503 +- 0.0505721       6      good
chromium@450366      19.4883 +- 0.0296859      6      good
chromium@450368      19.5079 +- 0.0400516      6      good
chromium@450370      19.6584 +- 0.0778585      6      bad
chromium@450374      19.6835 +- 0.104375       6      bad
chromium@450381      19.6611 +- 0.10045        6      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests smoothness.tough_animation_cases

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8986921452668431408

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=6221727215910912


| 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 Speed>Bisection.  Thank you!

Although the bisect is reporting infra failure, it was able to narrow down the issue to two CLs before failing:

https://codereview.chromium.org/2680943004

and

https://codereview.chromium.org/2678073002

The second CL doesn't seem related, so I'm guessing this was due to https://codereview.chromium.org/2680943004, "Make FrameSelection to hold non-canonicalized DOM positions". yosin@, can you take a look? Thanks!

Mark WontFix since graph is recovered.

Mark WontFix since graph is recovered