[improve][offload]PIP-211: Introduce Offload throttling, P1

[dao-jun]

PIP: #18004

Motivation

See #18004

Modifications

1. Move AsyncTokenBucket related classes from pulsar-broker to pulsar-common
2. Add OffloadLedgerHandle.java
3. Pass OffloadLedgerHandle's instance to LedgerOffloader instead of LedgerHandle.

Verifying this change

• Make sure that the change passes the CI checks.

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(example:)

• Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads (10MB)
• Extended integration test for recovery after broker failure

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

If the box was checked, please highlight the changes

• Dependencies (add or upgrade a dependency)
• The public API
• The schema
• The default values of configurations
• The threading model
• The binary protocol
• The REST endpoints
• The admin CLI options
• The metrics
• Anything that affects deployment

Documentation

• doc
• doc-required
• doc-not-needed
• doc-complete

Matching PR in forked repository

PR in forked repository:

[dao-jun]

Origin PR: #17485

[lhotari]

I think that AsyncTokenBucket should be used for rate limiting instead of implementing a separate solution. It was introduced in PIP-322.

[dao-jun]

I think that AsyncTokenBucket should be used for rate limiting instead of implementing a separate solution. It was introduced in PIP-322.

@lhotari
TimeWindow is not introduced by this PR, it exists a long time. Just reuse it here. If you think AsyncTokenBucket is better, I can fix this.

[dao-jun]

@lhotari I will move AsyncTokenBucket related class from pulsar-broker to pulsar-common, is it OK?

[lhotari]

I think that AsyncTokenBucket should be used for rate limiting instead of implementing a separate solution. It was introduced in PIP-322.

@lhotari
TimeWindow is not introduced by this PR, it exists a long time. Just reuse it here. If you think AsyncTokenBucket is better, I can fix this.

Yes, I think so. It's worth checking if you could implemented the rate limiting in a similar way as it is in other Pulsar rate limiters that were refactored in PIP-322 implementation.