All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=759690

(For debugging:) Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?sid=abced59ddfd922c7856bd5535c812f395005eebebb4e98b28b11e0dee5a99ad2


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

chromium-rel-mac11-pro

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8969999990780833840

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

Hi kerrnel@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 : Greg Kerr
  Commit : 4fa660ddcdc1744e5f4380c336df5c8e2226642c
  Date   : Thu Aug 24 20:48:27 2017
  Subject: Revert "Enable Finch Trial Test for MacV2Sandbox."

Bisect Details
  Configuration: mac_pro_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : loading.desktop
  Metric       : cpuTimeToFirstMeaningfulPaint_avg/pcv1-cold/Free.fr
  Change       : 14.62% | 218.96175 -> 250.97525

Revision             Result                  N
chromium@497105      218.962 +- 19.8053      6      good
chromium@497159      223.636 +- 32.0166      9      good
chromium@497173      230.338 +- 41.3417      9      good
chromium@497177      216.095 +- 20.4899      6      good
chromium@497179      225.055 +- 28.4396      6      good
chromium@497180      271.441 +- 36.33        6      bad       <--
chromium@497186      251.811 +- 23.1301      6      bad
chromium@497213      250.975 +- 28.7023      6      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=Free.fr loading.desktop

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8969999990780833840


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

 Issue 759701  has been merged into this issue.

This doesn't make sense. That CL in question is a revert of a CL that probably did cause a performance regression, so something else must be going on here?

 Issue 759739  has been merged into this issue.

 Issue 759661  has been merged into this issue.

Revert of previous improvement