Here we add the ability to save subsystem benchmark results in JSON
format to display them as graphs

To draw graphs, CI team will use
[github-action-benchmark](https://github.com/benchmark-action/github-action-benchmark).
Since we are using custom benchmarks, we need to prepare [a specific
data
type](https://github.com/benchmark-action/github-action-benchmark?tab=readme-ov-file#examples):
```
[
    {
        "name": "CPU Load",
        "unit": "Percent",
        "value": 50
    }
]
```

Then we'll get graphs like this: 

![example](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rhysd/ss/master/github-action-benchmark/main.png)

[A live page with
graphs](https://benchmark-action.github.io/github-action-benchmark/dev/bench/

)

---------

Co-authored-by: ordian <[email protected]>

**Update:** Pushed additional changes based on the review comments.

**This pull request fixes various spelling mistakes in this
repository.**

Most of the changes are contained in the first **3** commits:

- `Fix spelling mistakes in comments and docs`

- `Fix spelling mistakes in test names`

- `Fix spelling mistakes in error messages, panic messages, logs and
tracing`

Other source code spelling mistakes are separated into individual
commits for easier reviewing:

- `Fix the spelling of 'authority'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'REASONABLE_HEADERS_IN_JUSTIFICATION_ANCESTRY'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'prev_enqueud_messages'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'endpoint'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'children'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'PenpalSiblingSovereignAccount'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'PenpalSudoAccount'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'insufficient'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'PalletXcmExtrinsicsBenchmark'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'subtracted'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'CandidatePendingAvailability'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'exclusive'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'until'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'discriminator'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'nonexistent'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'subsystem'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'indices'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'committed'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'topology'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'response'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'beneficiary'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'formatted'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'UNKNOWN_PROOF_REQUEST'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'succeeded'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'reopened'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'proposer'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'InstantiationNonce'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'depositor'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'expiration'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'phantom'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'AggregatedKeyValue'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'randomness'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'defendant'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'AquaticMammal'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'transactions'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'PassingTracingSubscriber'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'TxSignaturePayload'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'versioning'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'descendant'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'overridden'`

- `Fix the spelling of 'network'`

Let me know if this structure is adequate.

**Note:** The usage of the words `Merkle`, `Merkelize`, `Merklization`,
`Merkelization`, `Merkleization`, is somewhat inconsistent but I left it
as it is.

~~**Note:** In some places the term `Receival` is used to refer to
message reception, IMO `Reception` is the correct word here, but I left
it as it is.~~

~~**Note:** In some places the term `Overlayed` is used instead of the
more acceptable version `Overlaid` but I also left it as it is.~~

~~**Note:** In some places the term `Applyable` is used instead of the
correct version `Applicable` but I also left it as it is.~~

**Note:** Some usage of British vs American english e.g. `judgement` vs
`judgment`, `initialise` vs `initialize`, `optimise` vs `optimize` etc.
are both present in different places, but I suppose that's
understandable given the number of contributors.

~~**Note:** There is a spelling mistake in `.github/CODEOWNERS` but it
triggers errors in CI when I make changes to it, so I left it as it
is.~~

Adds availability-write regression tests.
The results for the `availability-distribution` subsystem are volatile,
so I had to reduce the precision of the test.

Fixes https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/3530

Fixes https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/3528

```rust
latency:
    mean_latency_ms = 30 // common sense
    std_dev = 2.0 // common sense
n_validators = 300 // max number of validators, from chain config
n_cores = 60 // 300/5
max_validators_per_core = 5 // default
min_pov_size = 5120 // max
max_pov_size = 5120 // max
peer_bandwidth = 44040192 // from the Parity's kusama validators
bandwidth = 44040192 // from the Parity's kusama validators
connectivity = 90 // we need to be connected to 90-95% of peers
```

Signed-off-by: cuinix <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Bastian Köcher <[email protected]>

### What's been done
- `subsystem-bench` has been split into two parts: a cli benchmark
runner and a library.
- The cli runner is quite simple. It just allows us to run `.yaml` based
test sequences. Now it should only be used to run benchmarks during
development.
- The library is used in the cli runner and in regression tests. Some
code is changed to make the library independent of the runner.
- Added first regression tests for availability read and write that
replicate existing test sequences.

### How we run regression tests
- Regression tests are simply rust integration tests without the
harnesses.
- They should only be compiled under the `subsystem-benchmarks` feature
to prevent them from running with other tests.
- This doesn't work when running tests with `nextest` in CI, so
additional filters have been added to the `nextest` runs.
- Each benchmark run takes a different time in the beginning, so we
"warm up" the tests until their CPU usage differs by only 1%.
- After the warm-up, we run the benchmarks a few more times and compare
the average with the exception using a precision.

### What is still wrong?
- I haven't managed to set up approval voting tests. The spread of their
results is too large and can't be narrowed down in a reasonable amount
of time in the warm-up phase.
- The tests start an unconfigurable prometheus endpoint inside, which
causes errors because they use the same 9999 port. I disable it with a
flag, but I think it's better to extract the endpoint launching outside
the test, as we already do with `valgrind` and `pyroscope`. But we still
use `prometheus` inside the tests.

### Future work
* https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/3528
* https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/3529
* https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/3530
* https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/3531



---------

Co-authored-by: Alexander Samusev <[email protected]>