Index: doc/theses/thierry_delisle_PhD/thesis/text/core.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/theses/thierry_delisle_PhD/thesis/text/core.tex	(revision 29b36923507eaa8acfad777d130426ba63a3d494)
+++ doc/theses/thierry_delisle_PhD/thesis/text/core.tex	(revision e88c2fb9d35f0413c5318518ead8880e8cdc3d45)
@@ -32,4 +32,18 @@
 	\item Faster than other schedulers that have equal or better fairness.
 \end{itemize}
+
+\subsection{Fairness Goals}
+For this work fairness will be considered as having two strongly related requirements: true starvation freedom and ``fast'' load balancing.
+
+\paragraph{True starvation freedom} is more easily defined: As long as at least one \proc continues to dequeue \ats, all read \ats should be able to run eventually.
+In any running system, \procs can stop dequeing \ats if they start running a \at that will simply never park.
+Traditional workstealing schedulers do not have starvation freedom in these cases.
+Now this requirement begs the question, what about preemption?
+Generally speaking preemption happens on the timescale of several milliseconds, which brings us to the next requirement: ``fast'' load balancing.
+
+\paragraph{Fast load balancing} means that load balancing should happen faster than preemption would normally allow.
+For interactive applications that need to run at 60, 90, 120 frames per second, \ats having to wait for several millseconds to run are effectively starved.
+Therefore load-balancing should be done at a faster pace, one that can detect starvation at the microsecond scale.
+With that said, this is a much fuzzier requirement since it depends on the number of \procs, the number of \ats and the general load of the system.
 
 \subsection{Fairness vs Scheduler Locality} \label{fairnessvlocal}