简短的总结:

总是更喜欢使用notifyAll()而不是notify()，除非你有一个大型并行应用程序，其中大量线程都在做同样的事情。

解释:

notify()[…醒来时还是单身 线程。因为notify()不允许指定线程 唤醒后，它只在大规模并行应用程序中有用 是指具有大量线程的程序，它们都执行类似的任务。 在这样的应用程序中，您不关心哪个线程被唤醒。

来源:https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/guardmeth.html

比较上述情况下的notify()和notifyAll():一个大型并行应用程序，其中线程在做相同的事情。如果在这种情况下调用notifyAll()， notifyAll()将导致大量线程的唤醒(即调度)，其中许多线程是不必要的(因为实际上只有一个线程可以继续，即被授予wait()、notify()或notifyAll()对象监视的线程被调用)，因此浪费计算资源。

因此，如果您的应用程序中没有大量线程并发地做同样的事情，请使用notifyAll()而不是notify()。为什么?因为，正如其他用户已经在这个论坛上回答的那样，notify()

唤醒正在此对象的监视器上等待的单个线程。[…] 选择是任意的，发生在自由裁量权 实现。

来源:Java SE8 API (https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Object.html#notify--)

Imagine you have a producer consumer application where consumers are ready (i.e. wait() ing) to consume, producers are ready (i.e. wait() ing) to produce and the queue of items (to be produced / consumed) is empty. In that case, notify() might wake up only consumers and never producers because the choice who is waken up is arbitrary. The producer consumer cycle wouldn't make any progress although producers and consumers are ready to produce and consume, respectively. Instead, a consumer is woken up (i.e. leaving the wait() status), doesn't take an item out of the queue because it's empty, and notify() s another consumer to proceed.

In contrast, notifyAll() awakens both producers and consumers. The choice who is scheduled depends on the scheduler. Of course, depending on the scheduler's implementation, the scheduler might also only schedule consumers (e.g. if you assign consumer threads a very high priority). However, the assumption here is that the danger of the scheduler scheduling only consumers is lower than the danger of the JVM only waking up consumers because any reasonably implemented scheduler doesn't make just arbitrary decisions. Rather, most scheduler implementations make at least some effort to prevent starvation.

在这里，所有的醒来都没有多大意义。 Wait notify和notifyall，所有这些都放在拥有对象的监视器之后。如果一个线程处于等待阶段，并且调用了notify，那么这个线程将占用该锁，此时没有其他线程可以占用该锁。所以并发访问根本不能发生。据我所知，只有在锁定对象后才能调用wait notify和notifyall。如果我错了，请指正。

notify()将唤醒一个线程，而notifyAll()将唤醒所有线程。据我所知，没有中间立场。但是如果你不确定notify()会对你的线程做什么，使用notifyAll()。每次都很灵验。

当你调用wait()的“对象”(期望对象锁)、实习生这将释放锁,物体和帮助的其他线程锁在这个“对象”,在这种情况下,将会有超过1线程等待“资源/对象”(考虑到其他线程也发布了等待上面相同的对象,将会有一个线程的方式填补资源/对象并调用通知/ notifyAll)。

在这里，当您(从进程/代码的同一/另一端)发出同一对象的通知时，这将释放一个阻塞和等待的单个线程(不是所有等待的线程——这个释放的线程将由JVM thread Scheduler挑选，对象上的所有锁获取进程与常规进程相同)。

如果只有一个线程共享/处理这个对象，那么可以在wait-notify实现中单独使用notify()方法。

如果您处于基于业务逻辑的多个线程对资源/对象进行读写的情况，那么您应该使用notifyAll()

现在我正在寻找JVM是如何识别和打破等待线程时，我们发出通知()在一个对象…

简短的总结:

总是更喜欢使用notifyAll()而不是notify()，除非你有一个大型并行应用程序，其中大量线程都在做同样的事情。

解释:

notify()[…醒来时还是单身 线程。因为notify()不允许指定线程 唤醒后，它只在大规模并行应用程序中有用 是指具有大量线程的程序，它们都执行类似的任务。 在这样的应用程序中，您不关心哪个线程被唤醒。

来源:https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/guardmeth.html

比较上述情况下的notify()和notifyAll():一个大型并行应用程序，其中线程在做相同的事情。如果在这种情况下调用notifyAll()， notifyAll()将导致大量线程的唤醒(即调度)，其中许多线程是不必要的(因为实际上只有一个线程可以继续，即被授予wait()、notify()或notifyAll()对象监视的线程被调用)，因此浪费计算资源。

因此，如果您的应用程序中没有大量线程并发地做同样的事情，请使用notifyAll()而不是notify()。为什么?因为，正如其他用户已经在这个论坛上回答的那样，notify()

唤醒正在此对象的监视器上等待的单个线程。[…] 选择是任意的，发生在自由裁量权 实现。

来源:Java SE8 API (https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Object.html#notify--)

Imagine you have a producer consumer application where consumers are ready (i.e. wait() ing) to consume, producers are ready (i.e. wait() ing) to produce and the queue of items (to be produced / consumed) is empty. In that case, notify() might wake up only consumers and never producers because the choice who is waken up is arbitrary. The producer consumer cycle wouldn't make any progress although producers and consumers are ready to produce and consume, respectively. Instead, a consumer is woken up (i.e. leaving the wait() status), doesn't take an item out of the queue because it's empty, and notify() s another consumer to proceed.

In contrast, notifyAll() awakens both producers and consumers. The choice who is scheduled depends on the scheduler. Of course, depending on the scheduler's implementation, the scheduler might also only schedule consumers (e.g. if you assign consumer threads a very high priority). However, the assumption here is that the danger of the scheduler scheduling only consumers is lower than the danger of the JVM only waking up consumers because any reasonably implemented scheduler doesn't make just arbitrary decisions. Rather, most scheduler implementations make at least some effort to prevent starvation.

我想提一下《Java并发实践》中解释的内容:

第一点，是Notify还是NotifyAll?

It will be NotifyAll, and reason is that it will save from signall hijacking.

If two threads A and B are waiting on different condition predicates of same condition queue and notify is called, then it is upto JVM to which thread JVM will notify. Now if notify was meant for thread A and JVM notified thread B, then thread B will wake up and see that this notification is not useful so it will wait again. And Thread A will never come to know about this missed signal and someone hijacked it's notification. So, calling notifyAll will resolve this issue, but again it will have performance impact as it will notify all threads and all threads will compete for same lock and it will involve context switch and hence load on CPU. But we should care about performance only if it is behaving correctly, if it's behavior itself is not correct then performance is of no use.

这个问题可以通过使用jdk 5中提供的显式锁定Lock的Condition对象来解决，因为它为每个条件谓词提供了不同的等待。在这里，它将表现正确，不会有性能问题，因为它将调用信号，并确保只有一个线程正在等待该条件