Revert of Modify sample buffer size for larger displays.

Revert of Modify sample buffer size for larger displays. (https://codereview.chromium.org/240433002/)

Reason for revert:
Sorry, Henrik, but after all the churn, we're reverting :(

We are having unrelated DEPS roll issues, and since this may affect layout tests (which I suspect it will because it affects our GMs), we do not want to do anything to further prevent the DEPS roll.

The ignored-tests changes are also not correct, leading to redness in our tree. Will you please add the changes from https://codereview.chromium.org/296923002/, and then we'll resubmit once the DEPS roll goes through?

TBR=reed
NOTREECHECK=True
NOTRY=True

Original issue's description:
> Modify sample buffer size for larger displays.
> 
> Increases the intermediate buffer size for sample pixel indexes,
> used in the sample proc function calls. If the operation is bigger
> than the buffer it's split into multiple calls, creating overhead.
> This would especially impact the performance of SIMD optimizations.
> Also, aligns the start address of the buffer to 16 bytes, to enable
> more efficient SIMD optimizations.
> 
> Author: henrik.smiding@intel.com
> 
> Signed-off-by: Henrik Smiding <henrik.smiding@intel.com>;
> 
> Committed: http://code.google.com/p/skia/source/detail?r=14825

[scroggo, 2014-05-21 16:24:39]

Created Revert of Modify sample buffer size for larger displays.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-21 16:25:33]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/scroggo@google.com/297803005/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-21 16:25:34]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-21 16:25:34]

No LGTM from a valid reviewer yet. Only full committers are accepted.
Even if an LGTM may have been provided, it was from a non-committer or
a provisional committer, _not_ a full super star committer.
See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[scroggo, 2014-05-21 16:30:32]

The CQ bit was checked by scroggo@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-21 16:31:31]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/scroggo@google.com/297803005/1

[f(malita), 2014-05-21 16:31:33]

lgtm

[reed1, 2014-05-21 16:36:25]

The CQ bit was unchecked by reed@google.com

[scroggo, 2014-05-21 16:40:53]

On 2014/05/21 16:36:25, reed1 wrote:
> The CQ bit was unchecked by mailto:reed@google.com

CQ was not working, so reed@ submitted this manually:
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia.git/+/b03be0b887facebc9f6a202c43a134728465...

[borenet, 2014-05-21 17:03:31]

On 2014/05/21 16:40:53, scroggo wrote:
> On 2014/05/21 16:36:25, reed1 wrote:
> > The CQ bit was unchecked by mailto:reed@google.com
> 
> CQ was not working, so reed@ submitted this manually:
>
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia.git/+/b03be0b887facebc9f6a202c43a134728465...

FYI: It looks like this was failing due to a typo:

NOTREECHECK=True

Should have been:

NOTREECHECKS=true

... I think we need a checkbox or something instead of relying on human-typed
keywords

[rmistry, 2014-05-21 17:04:59]

On 2014/05/21 17:03:31, borenet wrote:
> On 2014/05/21 16:40:53, scroggo wrote:
> > On 2014/05/21 16:36:25, reed1 wrote:
> > > The CQ bit was unchecked by mailto:reed@google.com
> > 
> > CQ was not working, so reed@ submitted this manually:
> >
>
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia.git/+/b03be0b887facebc9f6a202c43a134728465...
> 
> FYI: It looks like this was failing due to a typo:
> 
> NOTREECHECK=True
> 
> Should have been:
> 
> NOTREECHECKS=true
> 
> ... I think we need a checkbox or something instead of relying on human-typed
> keywords

The keywords normally show up automatically. They did not because of
https://code.google.com/p/skia/issues/detail?id=2587

[scroggo, 2014-05-21 18:15:03]

On 2014/05/21 17:03:31, borenet wrote:
> On 2014/05/21 16:40:53, scroggo wrote:
> > On 2014/05/21 16:36:25, reed1 wrote:
> > > The CQ bit was unchecked by mailto:reed@google.com
> > 
> > CQ was not working, so reed@ submitted this manually:
> >
>
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia.git/+/b03be0b887facebc9f6a202c43a134728465...
> 
> FYI: It looks like this was failing due to a typo:
> 
> NOTREECHECK=True
> 
> Should have been:
> 
> NOTREECHECKS=true
> 
> ... I think we need a checkbox or something instead of relying on human-typed
> keywords

+1! I always have to look them up (I think they're in a bug somewhere, not sure
if they're documented in a better place). In this case I just copied from
another CL (which apparently had the typo). I think some kind of checkbox would
be nice for someone not doing a revert that needs to use those flags.

[scroggo, 2014-05-21 18:17:44]

On 2014/05/21 18:15:03, scroggo wrote:
> On 2014/05/21 17:03:31, borenet wrote:
> > On 2014/05/21 16:40:53, scroggo wrote:
> > > On 2014/05/21 16:36:25, reed1 wrote:
> > > > The CQ bit was unchecked by mailto:reed@google.com
> > > 
> > > CQ was not working, so reed@ submitted this manually:
> > >
> >
>
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia.git/+/b03be0b887facebc9f6a202c43a134728465...
> > 
> > FYI: It looks like this was failing due to a typo:
> > 
> > NOTREECHECK=True
> > 
> > Should have been:
> > 
> > NOTREECHECKS=true
> > 
> > ... I think we need a checkbox or something instead of relying on
human-typed
> > keywords
> 
> +1! I always have to look them up (I think they're in a bug somewhere, not
sure
> if they're documented in a better place). In this case I just copied from
> another CL (which apparently had the typo). I think some kind of checkbox
would
> be nice for someone not doing a revert that needs to use those flags.

Filed skbug.com/2588