Last week, I wanted a blocking queue that had all the characteristics of a priority queue so I wrote my own. You can find it in the open source Baron Greenback library here. It decorates a PriorityQueue rather than extending it as I didn't want to violate the contract that PriorityQueue provides regarding being unbounded.
My first cut of the code used Conditions hanging off a ReentrantLock and called signalAll. This can be optimised by instead calling signal instead.
From Java Concurrency in Practise:
Using notifyAll when only one thread can make progress is inefficient - sometimes a little, sometimes grossly so. If ten threads are waiting on a condition queue, calling notifyAll causes each of them to wake up and contend for the lock; then most or all of them will go right back to sleep. This means a lot of context switches and a lot of contended lock acquisitions for each event that enables (maybe) a single thread to make progress. (p303)
The Condition class "factors out the Object monitor methods (wait, notify and notifyAll) into distinct object" and so are analogous to the notify and notifyAll methods.
While Goetz warns that conditional notification "is difficult to get right" (you may wake up a thread that sees it doesn't fit the condition and then goes back to being suspended without waking anybody else up) as a rule one should use notify/signal rather than notifyAll/signalAll on an object that is acting as a semaphore.
Addendum: there is an excellent explanation at StackOverflow here that demonstrates getting the choice between notify/notifyAll wrong can be very dangerous indeed. It uses the example of many consumers and producers popping and pushing a stack. The takeaway point is that notifyAll wakes all threads and all of them will contend for the lock and then check the condition sequentially. Whereas a call to notify wakes only one thread and that thread might be a producer who cannot push any more because the data structure is full and therefore waits - ergo, deadlock.