All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=734636

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDgxu2m3QsM


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

chromium-rel-win7-x64-dual

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8976338839405173888

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

Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_x64_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : system_health.memory_desktop
  Metric       : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:system_memory:native_heap:proportional_resident_size_avg/browse_news/browse_news_flipboard

Revision             Result                      N
chromium@476150      575370312 +- 143460261      21      good
chromium@476361      584750525 +- 100775848      21      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=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=browse.news.flipboard system_health.memory_desktop

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8976338839405173888

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=4520440040521728


| 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/8976324866767149152

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

Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_x64_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : system_health.memory_desktop
  Metric       : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:system_memory:native_heap:proportional_resident_size_avg/browse_news/browse_news_flipboard

Revision             Result                      N
chromium@476150      581989794 +- 100831639      21      good
chromium@476361      575197228 +- 104047396      21      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=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=browse.news.flipboard system_health.memory_desktop

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8976324866767149152

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=4520440040521728


| 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/8970983268004278784

Re-kicked bisect over a wider range.

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

Hi khushalsagar@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 : khushalsagar
  Commit : 4e1be6ae8914f0eeed1df004b74a467bcb93241b
  Date   : Wed May 31 21:45:49 2017
  Subject: cc: Enable perf testing for checker-imaging.

Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_x64_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : system_health.memory_desktop
  Metric       : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:system_memory:native_heap:proportional_resident_size_avg/browse_news/browse_news_flipboard
  Change       : 18.13% | 497381541.167 -> 587576408.667

Revision             Result                      N
chromium@475633      497381541 +- 52200372       6      good
chromium@475949      495171711 +- 59603309       6      good
chromium@476028      487688475 +- 62476503       6      good
chromium@476038      497154485 +- 51301772       6      good
chromium@476040      520627045 +- 13593926       6      good
chromium@476041      573064169 +- 51354063       6      bad       <--
chromium@476043      572264964 +- 69189963       6      bad
chromium@476048      581972304 +- 51429098       6      bad
chromium@476068      585702008 +- 121336160      9      bad
chromium@476107      584019114 +- 53883144       6      bad
chromium@476265      582831370 +- 71921066       6      bad
chromium@476897      587576409 +- 69720513       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=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=browse.news.flipboard system_health.memory_desktop

More information on addressing performance regressions:
  http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8970983268004278784


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8970966296642644352

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

Hi khushalsagar@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 : khushalsagar
  Commit : de93e30d4aa72f1c1a5c88e2aafba0021697b351
  Date   : Fri Jun 23 23:03:46 2017
  Subject: cc: Move pre-decoding for checkerable images to image worker.

Bisect Details
  Configuration: win_x64_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : system_health.memory_desktop
  Metric       : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_os:system_memory:native_heap:proportional_resident_size_avg/browse_news/browse_news_flipboard
  Change       : 12.93% | 568539939.833 -> 495023556.667

Revision             Result                     N
chromium@481966      568539940 +- 48014040      6      good
chromium@482038      560955058 +- 65621728      6      good
chromium@482056      583443174 +- 64209412      6      good
chromium@482061      595859676 +- 13635950      6      good
chromium@482062      505170088 +- 52788202      6      bad       <--
chromium@482063      495478008 +- 58672543      6      bad
chromium@482065      505415450 +- 62798026      6      bad
chromium@482074      498719797 +- 62467534      6      bad
chromium@482110      495023557 +- 52910547      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=release_x64 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=browse.news.flipboard system_health.memory_desktop

More information on addressing performance regressions:
  http://g.co/ChromePerformanceRegressions

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8970966296642644352


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

Most likely the cause of the regression was that when initially checker-imaging was turned on, we could have a decode for the same image scheduled on the raster worker pool and the image worker thread.

de93e30d4aa72f1c1a5c88e2aafba0021697b351 already addressed that and looks like that fixed this regression.