release-22.2: server: add cpu profiler

[Santamaura]

Backport 1/1 commits from #95623.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

---

This PR adds a cpu profiler to the server package.
The following cluster settings have been added to configure
the cpu profiler:

• server.cpu_profile.cpu_usage_combined_threshold is the baseline
  value for when cpu profiles should be taken
• server.cpu_profile.interval is when the high water mark resets to
  the cpu_usage_combined_threshold value
• server.cpu_profile.duration is how long a cpu profile is taken
• server.cpu_profile.enabled is whether the on/off switch of the
  cpu profiler

Fixes: #75799

Release note: None

Release justification: low risk, high benefit changes to
existing functionality.

[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?

[cockroach-teamcity]

This change is 

[abarganier]

once CI passes - I went through the diff compared to the original PR and everything looks consistent.

I think we just have a small linter error (I guess this linter rule must no longer exist on master)

Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @smg260 and @srosenberg)

[Santamaura]

TFTR! Github CI failure seems like an unrelated linting error so I'm merging this

bors r+

[craig]

This PR was included in a batch that successfully built, but then failed to merge into release-22.2 (it was a non-fast-forward update). It will be automatically retried.

[renatolabs]

bors r-

We don't use bors in backports, you just click "Merge pull request" when ready.

[craig]

Canceled.