release-22.1: backport two disk-stall enhancements

[nicktrav]

This is a backport of #95863 and #96021 to 22.1.x.

Fix #97026.
Fix #97001.
Fix #97013.

Release justification: Low risk bug fixes.

---

storage: reorder EventListeners

To be defensive, sequence the EventListener responsible for crashing the
process during a disk stall first, before the Pebble logging event listener.

Informs #94373.
Epic: None
Release note: None

---

storage: Make logging event listener async for DiskSlow

The pebble logger could block if we're experiencing a slow
/ stalling disk. If the call to the pebble logger is synchronous
from the EventListener passed into Pebble, it could end up slowing
down Pebble's internal disk health checks as those rely on EventListener
methods being quick to run.

This change updates the logging event listener to asynchronously
call the logger on a DiskSlow event.

Related to #94373.

Epic: none

Release note: None.

[blathers-crl]

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

• Patches should only be created for serious issues or test-only changes.
• Patches should not break backwards-compatibility.
• Patches should change as little code as possible.
• Patches should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
• Patches should not add new functionality.
• Patches must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.

If some of the basic criteria cannot be satisfied, ensure that the exceptional criteria are satisfied within.

• There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
• The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
• New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters.
• The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.

Add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this backport.

Some other things to consider:

• What did we do to ensure that a user that doesn’t know & care about this backport, has no idea that it happened?
• Will this work in a cluster of mixed patch versions? Did we test that?
• If a user upgrades a patch version, uses this feature, and then downgrades, what happens?

[blathers-crl]

It looks like your PR touches production code but doesn't add or edit any test code. Did you consider adding tests to your PR?

_{🦉 Hoot! I am a Blathers, a bot for CockroachDB. My owner is dev-inf.}

[cockroach-teamcity]

This change is 

[nicktrav]

Looks like we missed these in the flurry of activity.

I suspect these should fix the roachtest failures we're seeing on 22.1.x.

[sumeerbhola]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @itsbilal, @jbowens, and @RaduBerinde)

[itsbilal]

LGTM, thanks for tracking these down!

[nicktrav]

TestCloser seems to fail reliably in CI, and also seems to be failing for other merged patched. I can't repro that test locally.

Merging. TFTRs!