All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=780227

(For debugging:) Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?sid=ba09ad001eb2e56a3f9735a1d4ee04f23c9be5181568012a1778cd714e7bdd92


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

chromium-rel-mac12

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8964184457737701120

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

Bisect Details
  Configuration: mac_10_12_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : system_health.memory_desktop
  Metric       : memory:chrome:all_processes:reported_by_chrome:skia:effective_size_avg/browse_social/browse_social_twitter_infinite_scroll

Revision             Result                    N
chromium@512046      38270142 +- 81666375      21      good
chromium@512107      34727189 +- 84890123      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 --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=browse.social.twitter.infinite.scroll 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/8964184457737701120


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

📍 Pinpoint job started.
https://pinpoint-dot-chromeperf.appspot.com/job/14a546d7040000

Trying another bisect on pinpoint since this is such a huge regression. The metric does appear to have gotten a lot noisier as well.

📍 Couldn't reproduce a difference.
https://pinpoint-dot-chromeperf.appspot.com/job/14a546d7040000

WontFix-ing because this came back down. +erikchen FYI on a pretty noisy metric.

+ hjd, lalitm, primiano

Looking at a trace I took locally, there's both skia:effective_size and skia:purgeable_size, which are different. The latter suggests that the former included temporary/cache resources? That will be noisy and we probably don't want to alert on that.