[enhancement] unify policy creation in pybind11

[icfaust]

Description

Information about how to construct policies can be made at compile time rather than runtime checks. A common get_policy function is defined in pybind11 which is macro'ed or the various builds. It will return a viable oneDAL policy based on the python object given to it (it should be a queue). This will reduce the number of cycles and simplify the interface.

To enable this, the spmd_policy.cpp file is removed, and its contents are moved into the policy.cpp file (not sure why it was separated out anyway, especially since it was in a macro if statement).

Logic is slightly changed to throw an error if a queue with value other than None passed to a NO_DPC build, as this is unexpected behavior.

---

PR should start as a draft, then move to ready for review state after CI is passed and all applicable checkboxes are closed.
This approach ensures that reviewers don't spend extra time asking for regular requirements.

You can remove a checkbox as not applicable only if it doesn't relate to this PR in any way.
For example, PR with docs update doesn't require checkboxes for performance while PR with any change in actual code should have checkboxes and justify how this code change is expected to affect performance (or justification should be self-evident).

Checklist to comply with before moving PR from draft:

PR completeness and readability

• I have reviewed my changes thoroughly before submitting this pull request.
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• I have updated the documentation to reflect the changes or created a separate PR with update and provided its number in the description, if necessary.
• Git commit message contains an appropriate signed-off-by string (see CONTRIBUTING.md for details).
• I have added a respective label(s) to PR if I have a permission for that.
• I have resolved any merge conflicts that might occur with the base branch.

Testing

• I have run it locally and tested the changes extensively.
• All CI jobs are green or I have provided justification why they aren't.
• I have extended testing suite if new functionality was introduced in this PR.

Performance

• I have measured performance for affected algorithms using scikit-learn_bench and provided at least summary table with measured data, if performance change is expected.
• I have provided justification why performance has changed or why changes are not expected.
• I have provided justification why quality metrics have changed or why changes are not expected.
• I have extended benchmarking suite and provided corresponding scikit-learn_bench PR if new measurable functionality was introduced in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 42.85714% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
onedal/common/policy.cpp	33.33%	0 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️

Flag	Coverage Δ
azure	79.91% <100.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
github	71.62% <42.85%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
onedal/common/_backend.py	83.56% <100.00%> (+3.81%)	⬆️
onedal/dal.cpp	95.65% <ø> (ø)
onedal/common/policy.cpp	44.23% <33.33%> (-1.43%)	⬇️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[icfaust]

/intelci: run

[ahuber21]

Let's try to get this merged. Could you quickly check the CI failures and see if they're fixed by simply re-running?