All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=739295

Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?keys=agxzfmNocm9tZXBlcmZyFAsSB0Fub21hbHkYgIDg7pTz5gkM


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

chromium-rel-win7-gpu-intel

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8974918447069910000

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

Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases
  Metric       : thread_raster_cpu_time_per_frame/thread_raster_cpu_time_per_frame

Revision             Result                     N
chromium@481684      0.574405 +- 0.0767766      21      good
chromium@481805      0.563313 +- 0.112163       21      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 thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8974918447069910000


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8974882674711756592

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

Hi muyuanli@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 : muyuanli
  Commit : 460df2746e65fd606c137999c0493f3d9b26e2b9
  Date   : Fri Jun 23 00:42:19 2017
  Subject: add more information to voice interaction root node.

Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases
  Metric       : thread_raster_cpu_time_per_frame/thread_raster_cpu_time_per_frame
  Change       : 0.95% | 1.75561267416 -> 1.77223003674

Revision             Result                    N
chromium@481684      1.75561 +- 0.0457965      14      good
chromium@481745      1.73136 +- 0.020615       9       good
chromium@481746      1.76565 +- 0.0164808      5       bad       <--
chromium@481747      1.79537 +- 0.0745791      9       bad
chromium@481749      1.78508 +- 0.0205105      6       bad
chromium@481753      1.76932 +- 0.02174        6       bad
chromium@481760      1.76039 +- 0.0257499      6       bad
chromium@481775      1.7892 +- 0.0172421       6       bad
chromium@481805      1.77223 +- 0.0207133      9       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 thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8974882674711756592


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

Explictly assigning. A CL you landed tripped one of the speed metrics we measure in the lab. If this is the first time this has happened to one of your CLs, or if it's been a while, please read: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/speed/addressing_performance_regressions.md

We're looking for one of the following:
1. Justification via explanation
2. Plan to revert or fix
3. Angry rage throwing of equipment at my head

Just be aware that I'm trained in trumpet playing and First Aid and am not afraid to use it.

Note: This was a bulk edit message and not very personal.

Doesn't the configuration indicate a windows machine? 
The CL bisect bot picked up is for chromeos, specifically ARC which should not affect windows platform.

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8972188871847257552

=== 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: d0db75d13114ecc183ef741853b4475fe8d132ac
  bad_revision : dac87b8db8fa7f9999bed9e1c37d99bea5596563

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


Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases
  Metric       : thread_raster_cpu_time_per_frame/thread_raster_cpu_time_per_frame

Revision             Result                     N
chromium@481000      1.71107 +- 0.0194315       6      good
chromium@481500      1.67845 +- 0.00948699      6      good
chromium@481563      1.67301 +- 0.015078        6      good
chromium@481594      1.72121 +- 0.0211427       6      good
chromium@481610      1.74505 +- 0.0532636       9      good
chromium@481614      1.77398 +- 0.0489144       9      bad
chromium@481618      1.77707 +- 0.032148        9      bad
chromium@481625      1.77569 +- 0.0191354       6      bad
chromium@481750      1.76201 +- 0.0180233       6      bad
chromium@482000      1.75109 +- 0.0167995       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 thread_times.tough_scrolling_cases

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8972188871847257552


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

muyuanli: sorry for the noise. The last bisect didn't finish, but it narrowed down to a range without your CL in it. None of the bisects reproduced the magnitude of the original regressions. WontFix-ing since it's just one bot/test and doesn't repro locally.