All graphs for this bug:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?bug_id=784367

(For debugging:) Original alerts at time of bug-filing:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/group_report?sid=7a6e34a657c8eb1998d5e18af8921592f94822c97b2be234960fc6a472f0cfa7


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

chromium-rel-win7-gpu-intel

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8963034967846678672

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Perf regression found but unable to continue

Bisect was stopped because a commit couldn't be classified as either
good or bad.


Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : smoothness.gpu_rasterization.tough_path_rendering_cases
  Metric       : frame_times/MotionMark Canvas Fill Shapes

Revision             Result                   N
chromium@515392      21.9643 +- 0.626968      21      good
chromium@515441      22.6689 +- 3.97014       21      unknown
chromium@515490      22.1152 +- 0.901124      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 --story-filter=MotionMark.Canvas.Fill.Shapes smoothness.gpu_rasterization.tough_path_rendering_cases

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8963034967846678672


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8963022943041171904

=== Auto-CCing suspected CL author jcivelli@google.com ===

Hi jcivelli@google.com, 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 : Jay Civelli
  Commit : d5b61433a7efc6d3ad90a9bb6f7a5304bbe0b8c2
  Date   : Fri Nov 10 03:37:05 2017
  Subject: Servicifying SafeArchiveAnalyzer.

Bisect Details
  Configuration: winx64intel_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : smoothness.gpu_rasterization.tough_path_rendering_cases
  Metric       : frame_times/MotionMark Canvas Fill Shapes
  Change       : 1.64% | 21.7395917434 -> 22.0954027106

Revision             Result                   N
chromium@515392      21.7396 +- 0.15002       6       good
chromium@515417      21.712 +- 0.428409       9       good
chromium@515429      21.7057 +- 0.569616      9       good
chromium@515435      21.7849 +- 0.50265       9       good
chromium@515438      21.8699 +- 0.714334      9       good
chromium@515440      21.8485 +- 0.450352      14      good
chromium@515441      22.7497 +- 2.28466       9       bad       <--
chromium@515490      22.0954 +- 0.500846      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 --story-filter=MotionMark.Canvas.Fill.Shapes smoothness.gpu_rasterization.tough_path_rendering_cases

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8963022943041171904


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

I doubt my CL affected this, it's not in any of the code path of any GPU related work.

Bisect isn't reproing anywhere near what the original regression said, and it went back down.