Implement LWG-2309 mutex::lock() should not throw device_or_resource_busy

[frederick-vs-ja]

Fixes #75. Fixes #3407.

---

This PR is currently subject to further changes, but decision is probably needed.

1. In the description of LWG-2309, SG1 suggested that resource_deadlock_would_occur should be thrown in the UB case; POSIX specifies EAGAIN (corresponding to resource_unavailable_try_again) on ownership level overflowing. While @BillyONeal preferred abort() for UB, and mentioned that SG1 suggested terminate() for overflowing (which, however, needs another LWG issue).
2. When implementing this, I strongly felt that it'd be better to divorce mutex::lock and recursive_mutex::lock because they have entirely different failing cases (same for try_lock). I guess they should be different functions.
3. The current changes are header-only. But I suspect that it'd be better to change mutex.cpp, although this will affect redist.
4. Test coverage is missing, because I wrote a test program like the following which succeeded but spent over 10 minutes running on my machine (in debug build). Most of the time were spent by operations of recursive_timed_mutex. While operations of recursive_mutex were far faster, they still took over 1 minute to run.

The extremely time-consuming test program:

#include <cassert>
#include <cstdint>
#include <mutex>
#include <system_error>

using namespace std;

template <class Mtx>
void test_overflowing_lock_levels() {
    constexpr uint64_t large_count = 0x20'0000'0000ULL;

    Mtx m{};
    bool thrown  = false;
    uint64_t cnt = 0ULL;

    try {
        for (; cnt != large_count; ++cnt) {
            m.lock();
        }
    } catch (const std::system_error& e) {
        thrown = true;
        assert(e.code().value() == static_cast<int>(std::errc::resource_unavailable_try_again));
    } catch (...) {
        assert(false);
    }

    assert(thrown);

    while (cnt != 0) {
        --cnt;
        m.unlock();
    }
}

int main() {
    test_overflowing_lock_levels<recursive_mutex>();
    test_overflowing_lock_levels<recursive_timed_mutex>();
}

[StephanTLavavej]

I'm mirroring this to the MSVC-internal repo - please notify me if any further changes are pushed.

[StephanTLavavej]

Thanks for implementing one of the oldest outstanding LWG issues! 🎉 🚀 🔒