All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=731888

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDg5tfrsAsM


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

chromium-rel-win7-dual

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977232215835936064

=== 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: c3568295e5606b20908b6155fd3cd0052fdb53be
  bad_revision : 927a09ab04f76ed68c8a1940992381fe8cc33def

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


Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : media.tough_video_cases_tbmv2
  Metric       : memory:chrome:browser_process:reported_by_os:resident_size_avg/memory:chrome:browser_process:reported_by_os:resident_size_avg

Revision             Result                  N
chromium@476344      66272445 +- 680212      21      good
chromium@476389      66381653 +- 293903      14      bad
chromium@476435      66347065 +- 514442      14      bad
chromium@476525      66451919 +- 672283      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 media.tough_video_cases_tbmv2

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977232215835936064

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5213019287584768


| 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/8977140239666110960

=== 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: 58d4d0b2d9511fe57bde3cbe82e486658183456c
  bad_revision : 3391e936295e694b35688b2152103b8d1432153d

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


Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : media.tough_video_cases_tbmv2
  Metric       : memory:chrome:browser_process:reported_by_os:resident_size_avg/memory:chrome:browser_process:reported_by_os:resident_size_avg

Revision             Result                  N
chromium@476344      66124379 +- 508916      21      good
chromium@476355      66106150 +- 148957      6       good
chromium@476367      66341072 +- 426993      6       bad
chromium@476390      66306271 +- 709411      14      bad
chromium@476435      66274743 +- 609771      14      bad
chromium@476525      66255909 +- 418844      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 media.tough_video_cases_tbmv2

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8977140239666110960

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5213019287584768


| 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!

Bisect can't repro, and graph didn't really look spikey in my view either.