Experimental Evaluation of the UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time

  • Andrew J. Bennett
  • A. J. Field
  • C. Murray Woodside
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3273)


We present a performance engineering methodology based upon the construction and solution of performance models generated mechanically from UML sequence diagrams, annotated using the UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance and Time (SPT). The target platform for the performance analysis is the Labelled Transition System Analyser (LTSA) tool which supports model solution via discrete-event simulation. Simultaneously, LTSA allows functional properties of a system to be explored formally, and we show how this can be used to detect functional anomalies, such as unnecessary sequentialisation and deadlock, prior to analysing the performance aspects of a system. The approach is evaluated with reference to a case study – a simple robot-based manufacturing system. The main objective is to explore the ways in which UML, the SPT profile and the LTSA tool can be used to design systems that satisfy specified behavioural and performance properties, through successive refinement.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Smith, C.U.: Performance Engineering of Software Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Concurrency: State Models and Java Programs. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayles, T., Field, T., Magee, J., Bennett, A.J.: Adding performance evaluation to the LTSA tool. Technical report, Department of Computing, Imperial College London (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canevet, C., Gilmore, S., Hillston, J., Prowse, M., Stevens, P.: Performance modelling with UML and stochastic process algebras. In: 18th UK Performance Engineering Workshop, Glasgow, Scotland (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jansen, D.N., Hermanns, H., Katoen, J.P.: A QoS-oriented extension of UML statecharts. In: Stevens, P., Whittle, J., Booch, G. (eds.) UML 2003. LNCS, vol. 2863, pp. 76–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Merseguer, J., Campos, J., Bernardi, S., Donatelli, S.: A compositional semantics for UML state machines aimed at performance evaluation. In: 6th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, pp. 295–302 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bernardi, S., Donatelli, S., Merseguer, J.: From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable Petri net models. In: WOSP 2002: Third International Workshop on Software and Performance, Rome, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsiolakis, A.: Intergating model information in UML sequence diagrams. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 50 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J., Magee, J.: Detecting implied scenarios in message sequence chart specifications. In: 8th European Software Engineering Conference, Vienna, Austria, pp. 74–82 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petriu, D., Woodside, M.: Software performance models from system scenarios in use case maps. In: Field, T., Harrison, P.G., Bradley, J., Harder, U. (eds.) TOOLS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2324, pp. 141–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu, J., Woodside, M., Petriu, D.: Performance analysis of a software design using the UML profile for schedulability, performance and time. In: Kemper, P., Sanders, W.H. (eds.) TOOLS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2794, pp. 291–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Object Management Group: UML profile for schedulability, performance and time specification (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bennett, A.J.: Software performance engineering with the UML profile for schedulability, performance and time. MSc dissertation, Centre for Systems Engineering, University College London (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ITU Telecommunication Standardisation Sector: ITU-T Recommendation Z.120 Message Sequence Charts (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew J. Bennett
    • 1
  • A. J. Field
    • 1
  • C. Murray Woodside
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of Systems and Computer EngineeringCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations