The source code is RebalancePushImpl#removeUnnecessaryMessageQueue.
In my opinion, just persist it once after locking it.

 public boolean removeUnnecessaryMessageQueue(final MessageQueue mq, final ProcessQueue pq) {
        if (this.defaultMQPushConsumerImpl.isConsumeOrderly()
            && MessageModel.CLUSTERING.equals(this.defaultMQPushConsumerImpl.messageModel())) {

            // First persistence
            this.defaultMQPushConsumerImpl.getOffsetStore().persist(mq);

            // remove order message queue: unlock & remove
            return tryRemoveOrderMessageQueue(mq, pq);
        } else {
            this.defaultMQPushConsumerImpl.getOffsetStore().persist(mq);
            this.defaultMQPushConsumerImpl.getOffsetStore().removeOffset(mq);
            return true;
        }
    }

    private boolean tryRemoveOrderMessageQueue(final MessageQueue mq, final ProcessQueue pq) {
        try {
            // unlock & remove when no message is consuming or UNLOCK_DELAY_TIME_MILLS timeout (Backwards compatibility)
            boolean forceUnlock = pq.isDropped() && System.currentTimeMillis() > pq.getLastLockTimestamp() + UNLOCK_DELAY_TIME_MILLS;
            
            if (forceUnlock || pq.getConsumeLock().writeLock().tryLock(500, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
                try {
                    // Second persistence
                    RebalancePushImpl.this.defaultMQPushConsumerImpl.getOffsetStore().persist(mq);
                    RebalancePushImpl.this.defaultMQPushConsumerImpl.getOffsetStore().removeOffset(mq);

                    pq.setLocked(false);
                    RebalancePushImpl.this.unlock(mq, true);
                    return true;
                } finally {
                    if (!forceUnlock) {
                        pq.getConsumeLock().writeLock().unlock();
                    }
                }
            } else {
                pq.incTryUnlockTimes();
            }
        } catch (Exception e) {
            pq.incTryUnlockTimes();
        }

        return false;
    }

By reading the source code, I personally think that only need to persist it once after acquiring the write lock.