I guess in my mind I conceptualize this as two lists. But I'm okay conceptualizing this as one long list with two distinct ends.
From Progress documentation, in the absence of -lruskips (the default of zero), they state that when a new block gets entered in the pool OR an existing block is accessed, it immediately moves to the top of the MRU. An internal algorithm is used to maintain the other end of the chain, the LRU. All blocks at the end of the LRU chain are candidates for removal/eviction/replacement. By setting the -lruskips to a positive integer, we are essentially messing with that algorithmic system.
So I'm not sure what we are trying to solve by this setting. In my case, no segment of the buffer ever seems to reach 100 skips. So are we trying to solve a buffer that is so small compared to workload that there is contention in latch acquisition. If that is the case, there is a larger problem than skips that should be addressed.
Additionally, since no block ever reaches the threshold of skips, every block in the pool is a candidate for removal, regardless of its access priority.
So I'm just not sure what we are attempting to solve here. Yes, latch contention, but isn't the cause of the latch contention the far greater problem?