Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8957150125272337584

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

Hi mythria@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 : Mythri Alle
  Commit : 2d88095699f02011d0d0c7d21bf4f348ae453b20
  Date   : Wed Nov 22 11:48:27 2017
  Subject: Remove v8.browsing_desktop and v8.browsing_mobile benchmarks.

Bisect Details
  Configuration: android_nexus5X_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : v8.browsing_mobile
  Metric       : memory:chrome:renderer_processes:reported_by_chrome:v8:allocated_by_malloc:peak_size_max/browse_social/browse_social_facebook_infinite_scroll
  Change       : 20.37% | 2310844.0 -> 2781604.0

Revision             Result                 N
chromium@518500      2310844 +- 0.0         6      good
chromium@518560      2310844 +- 0.0         6      good
chromium@518590      2373069 +- 306751      6      good
chromium@518605      2419832 +- 671264      9      good
chromium@518607      2390127 +- 216163      6      good
chromium@518608      2350649 +- 218023      6      good
chromium@518609      2840375 +- 321904      6      bad       <--
chromium@518613      2781604 +- 0.0         6      bad
chromium@518620      2781604 +- 0.0         6      bad

To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=android-chromium --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=browse.social.facebook.infinite.scroll v8.browsing_mobile

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

Debug information about this bisect:
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8957150125272337584


For feedback, file a bug with component Speed>Bisection

That was the cl that renamed v8.runtimestats.browsing to v8.browsing benchmark. That means we have enabled runtimestats in addition to the existing measurements.That might have impacted some timing and hence we see a regression in the peak memory. Since the v8:effective_size_avg hasn't regressed and it is only a regression on v8:peak_size_max and v8:peak_size_avg may be we can ignore this? 

Ulan, what do you think about marking this as won't fix? 

> Ulan, what do you think about marking this as won't fix? 
sgtm

Marking it won't fix as per comment #3.