refactor: introduce memory control policy abstraction

[xx01cyx]

I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

This PR introduces an abstraction for memory control policy: trait MemoryControl, and implements this trait on FixedProportionPolicy (the new memory control policy introduced in #7767) and StreamingOnlyPolicy (the policy we used before). We could implement this trait on various memory control policies in the future.

Related issue: #8228

Checklist For Contributors

• I have written necessary rustdoc comments
• I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
• All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)

Checklist For Reviewers

• I have requested macro/micro-benchmarks as this PR can affect performance substantially, and the results are shown.

Documentation

• My PR DOES NOT contain user-facing changes.

Click here for Documentation

Types of user-facing changes

Please keep the types that apply to your changes, and remove the others.

• Installation and deployment
• Connector (sources & sinks)
• SQL commands, functions, and operators
• RisingWave cluster configuration changes
• Other (please specify in the release note below)

Release note

[github-actions]

license-eye has totally checked 3006 files.

Valid	Invalid	Ignored	Fixed
1330	1	1675	0

Click to see the invalid file list

• src/compute/src/memory_management/policy.rs

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #8253 (451d06d) into main (5ce9f2e) will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8253      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   71.61%   71.57%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files        1132     1133       +1     
  Lines      183410   183507      +97     
==========================================
- Hits       131343   131339       -4     
- Misses      52067    52168     +101     

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	71.57% <0.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...rc/compute/src/memory_management/memory_manager.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/compute/src/memory_management/policy.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/compute/src/server.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/batch/src/task/task_execution.rs	51.75% <0.00%> (-0.51%)	⬇️
src/common/src/types/ordered_float.rs	30.87% <0.00%> (-0.20%)	⬇️
src/storage/src/hummock/compactor/mod.rs	80.38% <0.00%> (-0.20%)	⬇️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[liurenjie1024]

Generally LGTM

[liurenjie1024]

Is it possible to pass the unchange parts, e.g. total_compute_memory_bytes, barrier_interval_ms into concrete memory control policy implementation so that we can simplify API? For example, this way we don't need the describe method but implement Display trait would be enough.

[xx01cyx]

IMO the policy should only contain fields regarding the policy itself while excluding any information about user configurations like the CN memory (though this does make the code a bit more complex).