Index: doc/theses/thierry_delisle_PhD/thesis/text/existing.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/theses/thierry_delisle_PhD/thesis/text/existing.tex	(revision 9b817e15315f591bd7b62c32698afa89cffdc598)
+++ doc/theses/thierry_delisle_PhD/thesis/text/existing.tex	(revision cad61f40f9414bd3df5627e7a4d87494ef5971bb)
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@
 \subsection{User-Level Schedulers}
 By comparison, user level schedulers tend to be simpler, gathering fewer metrics and avoid complex notions of fairness. Part of the simplicity is due to the fact that all \glspl{at} have the same user, and therefore cooperation is both feasible and probable.
-\paragraph{Go}
-Go's scheduler uses a randomized work-stealing algorithm that has a global run-queue (\emph{GRQ}) and each processor (\emph{P}) has both a fixed-size run-queue (\emph{LRQ}) and a high-priority next ``chair'' holding a single element~\cite{GITHUB:go,YTUBE:go}. Preemption is present, but only at function call boundaries.
+
+\paragraph{Go}\label{GoSafePoint}
+Go's scheduler uses a randomized work-stealing algorithm that has a global run-queue (\emph{GRQ}) and each processor (\emph{P}) has both a fixed-size run-queue (\emph{LRQ}) and a high-priority next ``chair'' holding a single element~\cite{GITHUB:go,YTUBE:go}. Preemption is present, but only at safe-points,~\cit{https://go.dev/src/runtime/preempt.go} which are inserted detection code at various frequent access boundaries.
 
 The algorithm is as follows :