All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=715829

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDgwtn3oQoM


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

chromium-rel-win8-dual

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8981207893211485600

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
NO Perf regression found

Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_8_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : media.tough_video_cases_tbmv2
  Metric       : cpu_time_percentage_avg/video.html?src_tulip2.vp9.webm

Revision             Result                     N
chromium@463799      0.256532 +- 0.0445964      21      good
chromium@463935      0.255199 +- 0.0439572      21      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 --story-filter=video.html.src.tulip2.vp9.webm media.tough_video_cases_tbmv2

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8981207893211485600

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5002043237859328


| 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/8981198097452227568

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

Hi samans@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 : samans
  Commit : 2040988b1345e6ce738bd03ab7ccd5f4b73a956b
  Date   : Tue Apr 11 23:58:35 2017
  Subject: Use MojoCompositorFrameSink in RendererCompositorFrameSink

Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_8_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : media.tough_video_cases_tbmv2
  Metric       : cpu_time_percentage_avg/video.html?src_tulip2.vp9.webm
  Change       : 3.96% | 0.261843240396 -> 0.251466224909

Revision             Result                     N
chromium@463799      0.261843 +- 0.0751014      14      good
chromium@463833      0.264835 +- 0.0434594      9       good
chromium@463842      0.263638 +- 0.0559753      9       good
chromium@463844      0.264865 +- 0.0698362      14      good
chromium@463845      0.256042 +- 0.0470233      6       bad       <--
chromium@463846      0.261377 +- 0.0720654      14      bad
chromium@463850      0.256647 +- 0.0641775      9       bad
chromium@463867      0.262926 +- 0.02268        14      bad
chromium@463935      0.251466 +- 0.0981973      14      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 --story-filter=video.html.src.tulip2.vp9.webm media.tough_video_cases_tbmv2

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8981198097452227568

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5002043237859328


| 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!