Java concurrency: Countdown latch vs Cyclic barrier

There's another difference.

When using a CyclicBarrier, the assumption is that you specify the number of waiting threads that trigger the barrier. If you specify 5, you must have at least 5 threads to call await().

When using a CountDownLatch, you specify the number of calls to countDown() that will result in all waiting threads being released. This means that you can use a CountDownLatch with only a single thread.

"Why would you do that?", you may say. Imagine that you are using a mysterious API coded by someone else that performs callbacks. You want one of your threads to wait until a certain callback has been called a number of times. You have no idea which threads the callback will be called on. In this case, a CountDownLatch is perfect, whereas I can't think of any way to implement this using a CyclicBarrier (actually, I can, but it involves timeouts... yuck!).

I just wish that CountDownLatch could be reset!

One major difference is that CyclicBarrier takes an (optional) Runnable task which is run once the common barrier condition is met.

It also allows you to get the number of clients waiting at the barrier and the number required to trigger the barrier. Once triggered the barrier is reset and can be used again.

For simple use cases - services starting etc... a CountdownLatch is fine. A CyclicBarrier is useful for more complex co-ordination tasks. An example of such a thing would be parallel computation - where multiple subtasks are involved in the computation - kind of like MapReduce.