但是(如果我正确理解了这些方法之间的区别)，总是只选择一个线程进行进一步的监视采集。

这是不对的。o.notifyAll()唤醒在o.wait()调用中阻塞的所有线程。线程只允许一个接一个地从o.wait()返回，但它们将轮流返回。

简单地说，这取决于线程等待通知的原因。您是想告诉其中一个等待线程发生了什么，还是想同时告诉所有等待线程?

在某些情况下，所有等待线程在等待结束后都可以采取有用的操作。一个例子是一组等待某个任务完成的线程;一旦任务完成，所有等待的线程都可以继续它们的业务。在这种情况下，您可以使用notifyAll()同时唤醒所有等待的线程。

另一种情况，例如互斥锁，只有一个等待线程在被通知后可以做一些有用的事情(在这种情况下获得锁)。在这种情况下，您更愿意使用notify()。如果实现得当，您也可以在这种情况下使用notifyAll()，但是您将不必要地唤醒无法做任何事情的线程。

在很多情况下，等待条件的代码会被写成循环:

synchronized(o) {
    while (! IsConditionTrue()) {
        o.wait();
    }
    DoSomethingThatOnlyMakesSenseWhenConditionIsTrue_and_MaybeMakeConditionFalseAgain();
}

这样，如果一个o.notifyAll()调用唤醒了多个等待线程，并且第一个从o.wait() make返回的线程将条件保持在false状态，那么其他被唤醒的线程将返回等待状态。

注意，对于并发实用程序，您还可以在signal()和signalAll()之间进行选择，因为在那里调用了这些方法。因此，即使使用java.util.concurrent，这个问题仍然有效。

Doug Lea在他著名的书中提出了一个有趣的观点:如果notify()和Thread.interrupt()同时发生，通知实际上可能会丢失。如果可能发生这种情况，并且有显著的影响，notifyAll()是一个更安全的选择，即使您付出了开销的代价(大多数时间唤醒太多线程)。

摘自Effective Java博客:

The notifyAll method should generally be used in preference to notify. 

If notify is used, great care must be taken to ensure liveness.

所以，我的理解是(从前面提到的博客，“Yann TM”对公认答案和Java文档的评论):

notify() : JVM awakens one of the waiting threads on this object. Thread selection is made arbitrarily without fairness. So same thread can be awakened again and again. So system's state changes but no real progress is made. Thus creating a livelock. notifyAll() : JVM awakens all threads and then all threads race for the lock on this object. Now, CPU scheduler selects a thread which acquires lock on this object. This selection process would be much better than selection by JVM. Thus, ensuring liveness.

摘自Java大师Joshua Bloch在Effective Java第二版中的文章:

“第69项:选择并发实用程序而不是等待和通知”。

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

notify()让您编写比notifyAll()更有效的代码。

考虑下面这段从多个并行线程执行的代码:

synchronized(this) {
    while(busy) // a loop is necessary here
        wait();
    busy = true;
}
...
synchronized(this) {
    busy = false;
    notifyAll();
}

可以通过使用notify()来提高效率:

synchronized(this) {
    if(busy)   // replaced the loop with a condition which is evaluated only once
        wait();
    busy = true;
}
...
synchronized(this) {
    busy = false;
    notify();
}

在有大量线程的情况下，或者如果等待循环条件的计算成本很高，notify()将比notifyAll()快得多。例如，如果你有1000个线程，那么999个线程将在第一个notifyAll()之后被唤醒和评估，然后是998，然后是997，依此类推。相反，使用notify()解决方案，只会唤醒一个线程。

使用notifyAll()当你需要选择哪个线程将做下一步工作:

synchronized(this) {
    while(idx != last+1)  // wait until it's my turn
        wait();
}
...
synchronized(this) {
    last = idx;
    notifyAll();
}

Finally, it's important to understand that in case of notifyAll(), the code inside synchronized blocks that have been awakened will be executed sequentially, not all at once. Let's say there are three threads waiting in the above example, and the fourth thread calls notifyAll(). All three threads will be awakened but only one will start execution and check the condition of the while loop. If the condition is true, it will call wait() again, and only then the second thread will start executing and will check its while loop condition, and so on.