Index: doc/theses/thierry_delisle_PhD/comp_II/comp_II.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/theses/thierry_delisle_PhD/comp_II/comp_II.tex	(revision 62f38ff77e0a6dabcef65f9eff7adfdf8beeb65b)
+++ doc/theses/thierry_delisle_PhD/comp_II/comp_II.tex	(revision 1c507ebe808ee009690c5d37d901d8c25ab95fd5)
@@ -129,5 +129,5 @@
 As a hard requirement, the \CFA scheduler must guarantee eventual progress, otherwise the above-mentioned illusion of simultaneous execution is broken and the scheduler becomes much more complex to reason about.
 \newterm{Predictability} and \newterm{reliability} mean similar workloads achieve similar performance and programmer execution intuition is respected.
-For example, a thread that yields aggressively should not run more often than other tasks.
+For example, a thread that yields aggressively should not run more often than other threads.
 While this is intuitive, it does not hold true for many work-stealing or feedback based schedulers.
 The \CFA scheduler must guarantee eventual progress and should be predictable and offer reliable performance.
@@ -213,5 +213,5 @@
 Popping is done by selecting two queues at random and popping from the queue with the oldest timestamp.
 A higher number of underlying queues lead to less contention on each queue and therefore better performance.
-In a loaded system, it is highly likely the queues are non-empty, \ie several tasks are on each of the underlying queues.
+In a loaded system, it is highly likely the queues are non-empty, \ie several threads are on each of the underlying queues.
 This means that selecting a queue at random to pop from is highly likely to yield a queue with available items.
 In Figure~\ref{fig:base}, ignoring the ellipsis, the chances of getting an empty queue is 2/7 per pick, meaning two random picks yield an item approximately 9 times out of 10.