Many online transaction scheduler architectures and algorithms for various software transactional memories have been designed in order to maintain good system performance even for high concurrency workloads. Most of these algorithms were directly implemented in a target programming language, and experimentally evaluated, without theoretical proofs of correctness and analysis of their performance. Only a small number of these algorithms were modeled using formal methods, such as process algebra CSP, in order to verify that they satisfy properties such as deadlock-freeness and starvation-freeness. However, as this paper shows, using solely formal methods has its disadvantages, too. In this paper, we first analyze the previous CSP model of PSTM transaction scheduler by comparing the model checker PAT results with the manually derived expected results, for the given test workloads. Next, according to the results of this analysis, we correct and extend the CSP model. Finally, based on PAT results for the new CSP model, we analyze the performance of PSTM online transaction scheduling algorithms from the perspective of makespan, number of aborts, and throughput. Based on our findings, we may conclude that for the complete formal verification of trustworthy software, both formal verification and it's testing must be jointly used.